PDA

View Full Version : US Assessment - Pakistan unaware of Laden's Location



Agnostic Muslim
16 Nov 12,, 13:52
WASHINGTON: The commander of US Special Operations Command has said that a post-raid assessment concluded there is no evidence that the Pakistani government knew the whereabouts of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, who was eliminated in an operation in May 2011.

Navy Adm William H McRaven told attendees at a Summit that Pakistan wasn’t informed of the raid that led to the death of bin Laden.

McRaven said he doesn’t believe the Pakistani government knew bin Laden’s whereabouts, the Pentagon reported Thursday.

“We have no intelligence that indicates the Pakistanis knew he was there,” he added.

The US Special Forces carried out the secret night raid on Osama bin Laden’s hideout in Abbottabad on May 1, last year.

McRaven said there was never a moment he doubted the raid would succeed. Though bin Laden is dead, non-state actors still present a threat, the admiral noted.

“We’ve done a terrific job of taking care of the core of al Qaeda,” McRaven said. But, he added, “There’s no such thing as a local problem anymore. Everything in the world is connected.”

This interconnectedness means the future of special operations lies in partnerships with other nations, he added.

“We understand to minimize the rise of violent extremism, you have to create the conditions on the ground where people have good jobs, where there is the rule of law, where there is stability [and] where there is good governance,” he said.

“We think, from a military standpoint, we can certainly help with the security that will be required to help begin to build some of that stability”.

“The raids get all the media attention”, he continued, “but the reality of the matter is the bulk of what we do is building partner capacity and working with host nations. I think that’s the future of special operations,” he said, according to a Pentagon account of his remarks.

Pakistan was unaware of bin Laden’s location, US assessment concludes – The Express Tribune

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

So, can we finally put the conspiracy theories (that the Pakistan Army and/or ISI were complicit in hiding OBL) to rest now?

Tronic
16 Nov 12,, 17:25
Why open a new thread for this when you already have one running from before?

Agnostic Muslim
16 Nov 12,, 17:57
Why open a new thread for this when you already have one running from before?
Isn't the other one titled as a thread about whether Pakistan was informed about the Abbottabad operation rather than a thread about whether Pakistan was complicit or not?

omon
16 Nov 12,, 17:58
it starting to look like troling.

Agnostic Muslim
16 Nov 12,, 18:01
it starting to look like troling.
What is? The continued insistence that the Pakistani government and/or Military/Intelligence were officially complicit in hiding OBL despite the complete lack of evidence supporting said claims? I agree :)

That said, I am fine with the mods merging this thread with another if they desire, but perhaps you and Tronic could respond to the US Assessment instead of wringing your hands over forum housekeeping?

omon
16 Nov 12,, 18:04
What is? The continued insistence that the Pakistani government and/or Military/Intelligence were officially complicit in hiding OBL despite the complete lack of evidence supporting said claims? I agree :)

That said, I am fine with the mods merging this thread with another if they desire, but perhaps you and Tronic could respond to the US Assessment instead of wringing your hands over forum housekeeping?

get over it, i doubt anyone still cares.

Agnostic Muslim
16 Nov 12,, 18:09
get over it, i doubt anyone still cares.
Sorry, I can't just 'get over' the propaganda and smear campaign Pakistan has been subjected to during the past several years.

You don't have to read or respond to these threads you know ... free choice and all that ...

omon
16 Nov 12,, 18:15
Sorry, I can't just 'get over' the propaganda and smear campaign Pakistan has been subjected to during the past several years.

...



welcome to the real world, where preseption is reality. you should accept it, and move on, or your nervous system will be a train wreck by the time you are 40. there is noting you can say' link ' or post, that will change opinions and positions on pak much, if at all. you actually now doing counterproductive work. but hey, that is your free choice.

Agnostic Muslim
16 Nov 12,, 18:26
welcome to the real world, where preseption is reality. you should accept it, and move on, or your nervous system will be a train wreck by the time you are 40. there is noting you can say' link ' or post, that will change opinions and positions on pak much, if at all. you actually now doing counterproductive work. but hey, that is your free choice.

Perceptions cannot be changed by simply accepting false allegations and smear campaigns and 'moving on', they can only be changed, and rabid conspiracy nuts and hatemongers that refuse to change their biased minds despite all the evidence exposing their views as nonsense exposed, through continued attempts to highlight the lack of evidence behind such smear campaigns.

Cheers!

bolo121
16 Nov 12,, 18:49
Perceptions cannot be changed by simply accepting false allegations and smear campaigns and 'moving on', they can only be changed, and rabid conspiracy nuts and hatemongers that refuse to change their biased minds despite all the evidence exposing their views as nonsense exposed, through continued attempts to highlight the lack of evidence behind such smear campaigns.

Cheers!

AM why simply beat your head against a wall here. Go to pakdef and enjoy the circlejerk.
Pak govt and ISI have done so many nasty things that even if you create a list of links for next 100 years nobody will care what you say.

Doktor
16 Nov 12,, 18:53
I care!

AM has every right to post credible sources and you guys have every right to prove him wrong.

These low level attacks don't help anyone. As a matter of fact they help AM.

Agnostic Muslim
16 Nov 12,, 18:58
AM why simply beat your head against a wall here. Go to pakdef and enjoy the circlejerk.
Pak govt and ISI have done so many nasty things that even if you create a list of links for next 100 years nobody will care what you say.
The fun in debating is when people strongly disagree, wouldn't you agree? ;)

TopHatter
16 Nov 12,, 18:59
Perceptions cannot be changed by simply accepting false allegations and smear campaigns and 'moving on', they can only be changed, and rabid conspiracy nuts and hatemongers that refuse to change their biased minds despite all the evidence exposing their views as nonsense exposed, through continued attempts to highlight the lack of evidence behind such smear campaigns.Cheers!

I have a special loathing in my heart for conspiracy theorists and I'm far from being a hate-monger.

But seriously, to think that Bin Laden (and his family) slipped into Abbotabad and set up a little homestead less than a mile from the Pakistan Military Academy without some kind of help from the Pakistani government or military?

As I've pointed out before, the Pak government, intelligence and military are either hideously incompetent or somebody was keeping things quiet.

So which is it?

Agnostic Muslim
16 Nov 12,, 19:06
But seriously, to think that Bin Laden (and his family) slipped into Abbotabad and set up a little homestead less than a mile from the Pakistan Military Academy without some kind of help from the Pakistani government or military?

As I've pointed out before, the Pak government, intelligence and military are either hideously incompetent or somebody was keeping things quiet.

So which is it?

Your latter statement, as I have argued before, is reflective of a lack of understanding of the cultural dynamics and weak governance in Pakistan.

The land was bought by X, house constructed by X and/or Y, at the time of the raid it was owned by X/Y/Z, people only saw X/Y/Z going in and out of the house (X/Y/Z is not equal to OBL). At no point was there any indication that OBL resided there or was linked to it, AFAIK, so for me, given my comment about Pakistani governance and culture, it is completely plausible that OBL was able to get away without being detected.

Pakistan cooperated in terms of several critical AQ leadership arrests and intelligence that was provided to the US, and those arrests and intelligence were supposedly critical in piecing together bits of information to find OBL's hideout. Given that both the Pakistani and US investigations as well as various other official statements from both Pakistani and US officials have clearly pointed out the utter lack of any evidence pointing to Pakistani institutional complicity, I don't see how one can continue to buy into the argument that the PA/ISI was complicit.

Double Edge
16 Nov 12,, 19:45
AM

a link would have been helpful.

McRaven: No Evidence Pakistan Knew bin Laden’s Location | American Forces Press Service | Nov 15 2012 (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118560)

Could not find the interview on Rose's website.


“We have no intelligence that indicates the Pakistanis knew he was there,” he added.

So, can we finally put the conspiracy theories (that the Pakistan Army and/or ISI were complicit in hiding OBL) to rest now?
Lack of evidence isn't proof of absence.


McRaven said he doesn’t believe the Pakistani government knew bin Laden’s whereabouts, the Pentagon reported Thursday.
Nope, thats not quite what he said.

Tronic
16 Nov 12,, 19:51
That said, I am fine with the mods merging this thread with another if they desire, but perhaps you and Tronic could respond to the US Assessment instead of wringing your hands over forum housekeeping?

Actually, the other thread has the same exact discussion going, and that is my reason for questioning opening a new thread over this.

Anyhow, show me anyone here who has claimed that there is evidence that Pakistan was complicit?

Infact, the "US assessment" which you have bolded and underlined, clearly indicates that there is no evidence showing that the Pakistanis knew where Bin Laden was. It does not state that Pakistan was 'not' complicit in sheltering Bin Laden. World of a difference here.

Taking that one quote and saying that Pakistan was not complicit is a stretch. (You failed to post a link, so here it is: Pakistan was unaware of bin Laden’s location, US assessment concludes – The Express Tribune (http://tribune.com.pk/story/466739/pakistan-was-unaware-of-bin-ladens-location-us-assessment-concludes/)).

That said, the whole issue is about trust. We don't have the intelligence to prove that Pakistan was complicit in sheltering Laden, but do we trust that Pakistan was not? That's a whole another question. Trust and perceptions, if you wish to change them, can only be done by actively aligning towards the same goals. Pakistan has historically long been in bed with the Taliban, and it's continued reluctance to take action against Mullah Omar, fight against the Afghan Taliban, or associate groups, like the Haqqanis, do not help it in gaining trust in the world.

Double Edge
16 Nov 12,, 20:01
Lol, last edited at 00.25

It's a tie with you, Tronic :)

Agnostic Muslim
16 Nov 12,, 22:44
Actually, the other thread has the same exact discussion going, and that is my reason for questioning opening a new thread over this.
Again, leave the hand-wringing over forum housekeeping to the mods and admins - the report post and PM features on the forum work I take?


Anyhow, show me anyone here who has claimed that there is evidence that Pakistan was complicit?

Infact, the "US assessment" which you have bolded and underlined, clearly indicates that there is no evidence showing that the Pakistanis knew where Bin Laden was. It does not state that Pakistan was 'not' complicit in sheltering Bin Laden. World of a difference here.

Taking that one quote and saying that Pakistan was not complicit is a stretch. (You failed to post a link, so here it is: Pakistan was unaware of bin Laden’s location, US assessment concludes – The Express Tribune (http://tribune.com.pk/story/466739/pakistan-was-unaware-of-bin-ladens-location-us-assessment-concludes/)).

That said, the whole issue is about trust. We don't have the intelligence to prove that Pakistan was complicit in sheltering Laden, but do we trust that Pakistan was not? That's a whole another question. Trust and perceptions, if you wish to change them, can only be done by actively aligning towards the same goals. Pakistan has historically long been in bed with the Taliban, and it's continued reluctance to take action against Mullah Omar, fight against the Afghan Taliban, or associate groups, like the Haqqanis, do not help it in gaining trust in the world.
'Trust and perceptions' can be, and often are, colored by prejudices and biases, therefore 'trust and perceptions' are not a substitute for facts and evidence, which are clearly lacking when it comes to establishing any sort of Pakistani institutional culpability in sheltering OBL.

The thing is that when all else fails, certain members on this forum keep defaulting to the argument that 'Pakistan is guilty because it will lose a popularity contest', and as I have pointed out before, if you want to limit your arguments to that level, then just start a poll and be done with it on your end.

Tronic
16 Nov 12,, 23:42
'Trust and perceptions' can be, and often are, colored by prejudices and biases, therefore 'trust and perceptions' are not a substitute for facts and evidence, which are clearly lacking when it comes to establishing any sort of Pakistani institutional culpability in sheltering OBL.

Why would your greatest ally and your sole greatest benefector be prejudiced and biased against you? A little bit of introspection would be nice before pointing fingers all the time.


The thing is that when all else fails, certain members on this forum keep defaulting to the argument that 'Pakistan is guilty because it will lose a popularity contest', and as I have pointed out before, if you want to limit your arguments to that level, then just start a poll and be done with it on your end.

Doesn't make sense, AM. Pakistan only looses the popularity contest because it is deemed to be associated with the enemy, not the other way around. The main issue here is again, as I said before, of trust. Nothing more, nothing less. Pakistan has done nothing to gain that trust, but it has done much to erode it over the past decade.

As for debating facts; we have already concluded that the fact is that we don't have any evidence to prove Pakistani culpability in sheltering Bin Laden. The fact is, we don't know. It is not, "Pakistan did not shelter Bin Laden". Do you believe that you are debating facts here? All I see is your own personal opinion, over an already established fact.

TopHatter
17 Nov 12,, 00:23
Your latter statement, as I have argued before, is reflective of a lack of understanding of the cultural dynamics and weak governance in Pakistan.

So we're going with hideously incompetent. Well I think we knew that already.

What cracks me up is all the Pakistani hand-wringing about the security of Pak nuclear weapons...as if the Bin Laden raid could easily be duplicated to target them as well.

Deltacamelately
17 Nov 12,, 09:06
AM, leave Pakistan/PA/ISI aside. Tell me - Why did OBL chose Pakistan out of the whole world to seek shelter for himself and his family?

Agnostic Muslim
17 Nov 12,, 18:13
So we're going with hideously incompetent. Well I think we knew that already. Perhaps, in this particular case, but that does not change the fact that the ISI has neutralized hundreds of other AQ leaders and footsoldiers and without that cooperation and other intelligence input provided by the ISI to the CIA OBL's compound would not have been found. Every intelligence agency has bad days.



What cracks me up is all the Pakistani hand-wringing about the security of Pak nuclear weapons...as if the Bin Laden raid could easily be duplicated to target them as well.The majority of the 'hand-wringing about Pakistani nuclear seapons security' occurs in the West, not in Pakistan.

Pakistani conerns about a potential US military operation against Pakistani nukes are not so much about Rambo style raids than about targetted airstrikes.

Agnostic Muslim
17 Nov 12,, 18:19
AM, leave Pakistan/PA/ISI aside. Tell me - Why did OBL chose Pakistan out of the whole world to seek shelter for himself and his family?
A large country of 180 million with endemic corruption, poor governance, significant anti-american sentiment, religiously conservative with an existing presence of multiple religious extremist groups, connections and networks going back to the Afghan Jihad, a large Pakhtun population present in every province. .... It makes perfect sense to have hidden in Pakistan.

Now that said, why did terrorist leaders such as Bugti and Mullah FM choose to shelter in Afghanistan, the former with full US knowledge?

Agnostic Muslim
17 Nov 12,, 18:40
Why would your greatest ally and your sole greatest benefector be prejudiced and biased against you? A little bit of introspection would be nice before pointing fingers all the time. I dont see the US as Pakistans greatest ally and benefactor - the US Pakistan relationship is, and always has been, a transactional relationship with Pakistan as the client State.


Doesn't make sense, AM. Pakistan only looses the popularity contest because it is deemed to be associated with the enemy, not the other way around. The main issue here is again, as I said before, of trust. Nothing more, nothing less. Pakistan has done nothing to gain that trust, but it has done much to erode it over the past decade. Pakistanis would argue that the erosion in trust was started by the US after its abandonment of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and sanctions against Pakistan once US interests in Afghanistan were served. Pakistan has a acted to protect her interests and hedge her bets given the bitter experience of US betrayal in the past as well as its current double standards with respect to granting India an NSG exemption and sheltering Baluch and TTP terrorists in Afganistan and not taking a categorical position on accepting the Durand as the settled international border.



As for debating facts; we have already concluded that the fact is that we don't have any evidence to prove Pakistani culpability in sheltering Bin Laden. The fact is, we don't know. It is not, "Pakistan did not shelter Bin Laden". Do you believe that you are debating facts here? All I see is your own personal opinion, over an already established fact.
The facts are that we do know that Pakistan did not shelter OBL since there is no evidence supporting Pakistani institutional complicity and no motive other than absurd conspiracy theories for Pakistan to have sheltered OBL.

Tronic
17 Nov 12,, 21:32
I dont see the US as Pakistans greatest ally and benefactor - the US Pakistan relationship is, and always has been, a transactional relationship with Pakistan as the client State.

And the point is? The US ran a weapons supply chain through Iran into Pakistan during the '71 war, supplying crucially needed fighter jets. The large amounts of US aid to Pakistan in the 1960s was the confidence booster for Pakistan to launch Op Gibraltar against India in '65. It was the US's political support of Pakistan at the UN which enabled it to carry out it's misdeeds in East Pakistan. At the end of the day, client state or no client state, you only have your army to blame for reaching such high levels of incompetency. The US did more for you than any other country, decades before the Soviets even stepped foot into Afghanistan.

Moreover, Pakistan's economic upswings have also only come at a time of increased US aid to the country.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8119/pakaidfromus.jpg
Sixty years of US aid to Pakistan: Get the data | Global development | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jul/11/us-aid-to-pakistan)


Pakistanis would argue that the erosion in trust was started by the US after its abandonment of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and sanctions against Pakistan once US interests in Afghanistan were served.

That's fine. Make that argument from the Pakistani POV; it doesn't explain why others do not trust Pakistan, and that is only due to it's close association with the enemy.


Pakistan has a acted to protect her interests and hedge her bets given the bitter experience of US betrayal in the past as well as its current double standards with respect to granting India an NSG exemption and sheltering Baluch and TTP terrorists in Afganistan and not taking a categorical position on accepting the Durand as the settled international border.

Glad you admit it. So why whine about "prejudices and biases" against Pakistan, when even you admit that Pakistan and the rest sit on two opposite sides of the fence?

As for India getting an NSG exemption; Pakistan is not India, nor did India have an AQ Khan.


The facts are that we do know that Pakistan did not shelter OBL since there is no evidence supporting Pakistani institutional complicity and no motive other than absurd conspiracy theories for Pakistan to have sheltered OBL.

The fact is the bolded bit. The rest is nothing but your own spin on the fact and your personal opinion. Although I must say, it is amusing to see you stretching this from "Pakistani government complicity" (which even I do not believe) to "Pakistani institutional complicity" to cover the posterior of the army. :biggrin:

omon
17 Nov 12,, 21:57
A large country of 180 million with endemic corruption, poor governance, significant anti-american sentiment, religiously conservative with an existing presence of multiple religious extremist groups, connections and networks going back to the Afghan Jihad, a large Pakhtun population present in every province. .... It makes perfect sense to have hidden in Pakistan.


and those are perfect reasons no to trust PAK, and not take seriously anything it says in the mater.

TopHatter
17 Nov 12,, 22:24
and those are perfect reasons no to trust PAK, and not take seriously anything it says in the mater.

Schooled! :biggrin:

Deltacamelately
18 Nov 12,, 12:48
A large country of 180 million with endemic corruption, poor governance, significant anti-american sentiment, religiously conservative with an existing presence of multiple religious extremist groups, connections and networks going back to the Afghan Jihad, a large Pakhtun population present in every province. .... It makes perfect sense to have hidden in Pakistan.

Now that said, why did terrorist leaders such as Bugti and Mullah FM choose to shelter in Afghanistan, the former with full US knowledge?
Thanks. I think think that pretty much sums it up. No more polls required. ;)

Pedicabby
18 Nov 12,, 14:03
- Why did OBL chose Pakistan out of the whole world to seek shelter for himself and his family?


Well the food is good, the locals are nice enough and the rickshaw drivers don't try and rip you off all the time like the rickshaw drivers in India?

:biggrin:

Agnostic Muslim
19 Nov 12,, 13:00
and those are perfect reasons no to trust PAK, and not take seriously anything it says in the mater.

Thanks. I think think that pretty much sums it up. No more polls required. ;)
Those are reasons for why the country lacks proper governance and why all manner of criminals find it relatively easy to stay on the run, they are not reasons highlighting institutional Pakistani complicity in sheltering OBL.

But I understand if you lot have no stomach for real discussion ...

Agnostic Muslim
19 Nov 12,, 13:21
And the point is? The US ran a weapons supply chain through Iran into Pakistan during the '71 war, supplying crucially needed fighter jets. The large amounts of US aid to Pakistan in the 1960s was the confidence booster for Pakistan to launch Op Gibraltar against India in '65. It was the US's political support of Pakistan at the UN which enabled it to carry out it's misdeeds in East Pakistan. At the end of the day, client state or no client state, you only have your army to blame for reaching such high levels of incompetency. The US did more for you than any other country, decades before the Soviets even stepped foot into Afghanistan.
US assistance to Pakistan, during and before the Soviet invasion, was not out of the goodness of her heart but because the Pakistani leadership chose to court that assistance with promises of being a 'ally/client state' against Communism during the Cold War - I am not arguing the failures of Pakistani political and military leadership over the decades here, merely pointing out that the US-Pakistan relationship has always been transactional and that US economic and military assistance has always, primarily, in exchange for Pakistani support during the Cold War, Afghan invasion etc.


Moreover, Pakistan's economic upswings have also only come at a time of increased US aid to the country.
Perhaps, but US aid during those times was not charity, it was aid in exchange for Pakistani cooperation on various issues - the relationship was and is a transactional one.


That's fine. Make that argument from the Pakistani POV; it doesn't explain why others do not trust Pakistan, and that is only due to it's close association with the enemy.
Outside of the US and US influenced entities (ignoring India due to its perennial Pakistan-hatred) there is really no country that has taken an anti-Pakistan position as much as the US has.


Glad you admit it. So why whine about "prejudices and biases" against Pakistan, when even you admit that Pakistan and the rest sit on two opposite sides of the fence?
We sit on the opposite sides of the fence because of US/Afghan support for terrorists, refusal to accept Pakistani territorial integrity and open discrimination on the international scene? Please explain why should Pakistan sit on the same side as the US given those issues?

As for India getting an NSG exemption; Pakistan is not India, nor did India have an AQ Khan.
AQ Khan did nothing compared to the European, Russian and Chinese proliferation activities that resulted in functioning, and still improving, nuclear weapons programs in Israel and Pakistan, so if proliferation of nuclear weapons technology is the issue, then Pakistan is nowhere close to being at the top of the list of 'proliferation sinners'.


The fact is the bolded bit. The rest is nothing but your own spin on the fact and your personal opinion. Although I must say, it is amusing to see you stretching this from "Pakistani government complicity" (which even I do not believe) to "Pakistani institutional complicity" to cover the posterior of the army. :biggrin:
McRaven's direct quote said 'Pakistanis', not 'Pakistani government', and yes, I am using the term 'Pakistani institutional complicity' for that reason, given McRaven's quote, why do you object to that term?

The fact is that the lack of any evidence implicating Pakistani institutions has been consistently pointed out by US Officials:

Panetta:
"I don't have any hard evidence, so I can't say it for a fact. There's nothing that proves the case. But as I said, my personal view is that somebody somewhere probably had that knowledge," Panetta says.
Panetta on bin Laden's hideout: Someone had to know - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57367713/panetta-on-bin-ladens-hideout-someone-had-to-know/)

and:
Clinton:
“We have never been able to prove that anyone at the upper levels knew that,” the US Secretary of State said.

“When I first went to Pakistan as Secretary in 2009 that I found it impossible to believe that somebody in their government didn’t know where he was, and I still believe that. That he took up residence and built this huge compound in a military garrison town,” Clinton said.

“But to be fair, we have no evidence.”

“I have no reason to believe that the civilian government knew anything,” she said before adding that the answer perhaps lay with lower level military and intelligence officials. “So who was in what level of responsibility in the military or the ISI, whether they were active or retired, because we do know that there are links to retired members, but we’ve never been able to close that loop,” the Secretary of State said.
Not in US interests to cut off relations with Pakistan: Clinton – The Express Tribune (http://tribune.com.pk/story/397539/not-in-us-interests-to-cut-off-relations-with-pakistan-clinton/)

The continued insistence by commentators on this board, and others like them elsewhere, is similar to the insistence by some that the 9/11 attacks were the result of a CIA/Mossad conspiracy ... some of the arguments on that side of the conspiracy nut spectrum are similar to the ones being made here, 'so what if there is absolutely no evidence showing CIA/Mossad complicity in the 9/11 attacks, that does not mean they are not guilty, it just means there is no evidence proving their guilt' - sound familiar Tronic?

Double Edge
19 Nov 12,, 13:52
So McRaven has just repeated what Hilary already said over a year ago. He has added nothing new.

Absence of evidence isn't proof of absence.

Agnostic Muslim
19 Nov 12,, 13:55
Absence of evidence isn't proof of absence.
That is an old philosophical argument made in favor of the existence of God, and has been largely classified as a logical fallacy in modern secular discourse and law - one must prove the guilt of the accused, not the innocence. The inability to prove guilt determines the innocence of the accused.

Chogy
19 Nov 12,, 17:38
The inability to prove guilt determines the innocence of the accused.

Let's be realistic here, the inability to prove guilt doesn't mean the defendant didn't commit the murder... it simply means the evidence is hidden. Plenty of murderers have been found "not guilty" in a court of law.

Unless something, some hard bit of intelligence comes to light, we'll probably never know how deep the conspiracy went. The fact that there WAS a conspiracy to keep bin Laden hidden and secure is undeniable. The only question is, how high did it go? Did it extend at all to government agencies?

My personal opinion with no evidential basis whatsoever is that there was a small cabal within the ISI and government that knew about bin Laden, and by modest, I'd suggest 8 to 12 individuals? Just guessing. More than that, the chances of a leak rise exponentially, as someone would have found the reward $$ simply too tempting, or simply made a mistake in security.

Minskaya
19 Nov 12,, 19:09
The inability to prove guilt determines the innocence of the accused.
In a court of law yes. But much less so in the court of public opinion.

Double Edge
19 Nov 12,, 20:30
My personal opinion with no evidential basis whatsoever is that there was a small cabal within the ISI and government that knew about bin Laden, and by modest, I'd suggest 8 to 12 individuals? Just guessing. More than that, the chances of a leak rise exponentially, as someone would have found the reward $$ simply too tempting, or simply made a mistake in security.
Bad job to take though, they're prolly all dead by now. That's how a conspiracy works. Them boys on the Grassy Knoll they were dead within three hours, buried in the damned desert, unmarked graves out past Terlingua.

Tronic
20 Nov 12,, 03:28
US assistance to Pakistan, during and before the Soviet invasion, was not out of the goodness of her heart but because the Pakistani leadership chose to court that assistance with promises of being a 'ally/client state' against Communism during the Cold War - I am not arguing the failures of Pakistani political and military leadership over the decades here, merely pointing out that the US-Pakistan relationship has always been transactional and that US economic and military assistance has always, primarily, in exchange for Pakistani support during the Cold War, Afghan invasion etc.


Perhaps, but US aid during those times was not charity, it was aid in exchange for Pakistani cooperation on various issues - the relationship was and is a transactional one.

I still don't see what you are trying to get that? There is no such thing as a free lunch. Every country has a "transactional" relationship with every other. What's your point?


Outside of the US and US influenced entities (ignoring India due to its perennial Pakistan-hatred) there is really no country that has taken an anti-Pakistan position as much as the US has.

The US has spoiled you so much with all that maternal treatment that you don't even know what an "anti-Pakistan" position is anymore. Sounds more like a spoiled teenager revolting against his/her parents.


We sit on the opposite sides of the fence because of US/Afghan support for terrorists, refusal to accept Pakistani territorial integrity and open discrimination on the international scene? Please explain why should Pakistan sit on the same side as the US given those issues?

I'm not saying you should sit on the same side, I'm just saying you should stop pretending to.


AQ Khan did nothing compared to the European, Russian and Chinese proliferation activities that resulted in functioning, and still improving, nuclear weapons programs in Israel and Pakistan, so if proliferation of nuclear weapons technology is the issue, then Pakistan is nowhere close to being at the top of the list of 'proliferation sinners'.

As long as you can convince the NSG with that argument, sure.


McRaven's direct quote said 'Pakistanis', not 'Pakistani government', and yes, I am using the term 'Pakistani institutional complicity' for that reason, given McRaven's quote, why do you object to that term?

The fact is that the lack of any evidence implicating Pakistani institutions has been consistently pointed out by US Officials:

Panetta:
"I don't have any hard evidence, so I can't say it for a fact. There's nothing that proves the case. But as I said, my personal view is that somebody somewhere probably had that knowledge," Panetta says.
Panetta on bin Laden's hideout: Someone had to know - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57367713/panetta-on-bin-ladens-hideout-someone-had-to-know/)

and:
Clinton:
“We have never been able to prove that anyone at the upper levels knew that,” the US Secretary of State said.

“When I first went to Pakistan as Secretary in 2009 that I found it impossible to believe that somebody in their government didn’t know where he was, and I still believe that. That he took up residence and built this huge compound in a military garrison town,” Clinton said.

“But to be fair, we have no evidence.”

“I have no reason to believe that the civilian government knew anything,” she said before adding that the answer perhaps lay with lower level military and intelligence officials. “So who was in what level of responsibility in the military or the ISI, whether they were active or retired, because we do know that there are links to retired members, but we’ve never been able to close that loop,” the Secretary of State said.
Not in US interests to cut off relations with Pakistan: Clinton – The Express Tribune (http://tribune.com.pk/story/397539/not-in-us-interests-to-cut-off-relations-with-pakistan-clinton/)

It's already been answered by other members, but again, lack of evidence is just that, lack of evidence. Nothing more.


The continued insistence by commentators on this board, and others like them elsewhere, is similar to the insistence by some that the 9/11 attacks were the result of a CIA/Mossad conspiracy ... some of the arguments on that side of the conspiracy nut spectrum are similar to the ones being made here, 'so what if there is absolutely no evidence showing CIA/Mossad complicity in the 9/11 attacks, that does not mean they are not guilty, it just means there is no evidence proving their guilt' - sound familiar Tronic?

Just with the slight difference of Binnie boy actually being caught living in a Pakistani garrison town and Haqqani, Hekmatyar, Mullah Omar and Co. enjoying Pakistani hospitality for more than a decade.

Officer of Engineers
20 Nov 12,, 07:17
AQ Khan did nothing compared to the European, Russian and Chinese proliferation activities that resulted in functioning, and still improving, nuclear weapons programs in Israel and Pakistan, so if proliferation of nuclear weapons technology is the issue, then Pakistan is nowhere close to being at the top of the list of 'proliferation sinners'.HORSE PUCKEY!!!! ACCORDING TO YOUR VERY OWN POSTS! PAKISTAN REJECTED CHINESE DESIGNS AND WENT WITH THEIR OWN!

As far as Israel is concerned, I CHALLENGED YOU TO show me that Isareli nukes are more advanced than Pakistani nukes ... which REJECTED CHINESE DESIGNS according to you!

Doktor
20 Nov 12,, 07:21
And then in another thread the Col says his memory is bad.

Officer of Engineers
20 Nov 12,, 07:24
And then in another thread the Col says his memory is bad.It is. My teenage daughter wants a car that I promised her 10 years ago.

Doktor
20 Nov 12,, 07:26
It is. My teenage daughter wants a car that I promised her 10 years ago.

Guess you have no clue about it. My father was the same, yet his memory served him good about my promises. Go figure.

Officer of Engineers
20 Nov 12,, 07:52
Pakistani conerns about a potential US military operation against Pakistani nukes are not so much about Rambo style raids than about targetted airstrikes.Is it me ... or everyone in Pakistan ignorant about the primary force dedicated to taking out nukes? Pakistan doesn't have to worry about American airstrikes. Pakistan has to worry about American, British, French, and Russian NUKE STRIKES.

Deltacamelately
20 Nov 12,, 10:55
Those are reasons for why the country lacks proper governance and why all manner of criminals find it relatively easy to stay on the run, they are not reasons highlighting institutional Pakistani complicity in sheltering OBL
And yet you want the international community to trust and respect an institution, that is the Pakistani State, which has failed to keep its house clean and in order?:frown:


But I understand if you lot have no stomach for real discussion ...
Indeed.:cool:

Agnostic Muslim
20 Nov 12,, 16:26
In a court of law yes. But much less so in the court of public opinion.
As I have argued before, if you want to resort to 'public opinion' then why bother debating any issue?

Just set up polls and call it a day when the results show up and those of us actually interested in discussing an issue can avoid wasting our time with you and others that share your 'court of public opinion' POV.

Agnostic Muslim
20 Nov 12,, 16:35
Let's be realistic here, the inability to prove guilt doesn't mean the defendant didn't commit the murder... it simply means the evidence is hidden. Plenty of murderers have been found "not guilty" in a court of law.
I do not disagree, but why limit this argument to Pakistani institutional complicity in sheltering OBL? Why not also then accept that the conspiracy nuts arguing that the CIA/Mossad were somehow involved in assisting AQ in carrying out the 9/11 attacks have a point since 'the evidence implicating the CIA/Mossad may simply be hidden'?


Unless something, some hard bit of intelligence comes to light, we'll probably never know how deep the conspiracy went. The fact that there WAS a conspiracy to keep bin Laden hidden and secure is undeniable. The only question is, how high did it go? Did it extend at all to government agencies?
I have not argued against 'a conspiracy to hide OBL', I have argued that there is no evidence or credible motive to allege that the conspiracy to hide OBL involved Pakistani institutions.


My personal opinion with no evidential basis whatsoever is that there was a small cabal within the ISI and government that knew about bin Laden, and by modest, I'd suggest 8 to 12 individuals? Just guessing. More than that, the chances of a leak rise exponentially, as someone would have found the reward $$ simply too tempting, or simply made a mistake in security.
Any 'cabal' in the government and/or ISI would have to involve the top leadership, and it would involve multiple government and/or ISI leaders since the leadership in both changed over the time that OBL was hiding in Pakistan. So this 'cabal' would end up being significantly larger than what you think it could be which in turn means that someone would have probably talked by now and there would be some evidence on this count.

Agnostic Muslim
20 Nov 12,, 16:48
I still don't see what you are trying to get that? There is no such thing as a free lunch. Every country has a "transactional" relationship with every other. What's your point?
My point is that the US did no favors to Pakistan - US aid to Pakistan was and is in exchange for Pakistani support on various issues.


The US has spoiled you so much with all that maternal treatment that you don't even know what an "anti-Pakistan" position is anymore. Sounds more like a spoiled teenager revolting against his/her parents.
I actually detailed what the 'anti-Pakistan US position' entails but perhaps I need to list it again to make it clearer:

1. Supporting/sheltering terrorists groups such as the Baloch terrorist groups (sheltering Bugti) and the TTP (sheltering the TTP/Mullah FM)

2. Refusing to categorically and officially accept the UN recognized Afghan-Pakistan international border and make clear to the Afghans that they would not get any support from the US on that issue and needed to take their claims to an international body like the UN or ICJ if they continued to insist on their claims.

** I do have to clarify that Grossman made some reference in support of the Pakistani position in some private comments he made in Afghanistan earlier this year, which riled the Afghans no end apparently, but this is still a far cry from a clear official US statement on the issue of the Durand Line.

3. Discriminatory treatment on the international scene with respect to civilian nuclear technology.

4. Continued military operations inside Pakistani territory in violation of international law and the UN Charter.


I'm not saying you should sit on the same side, I'm just saying you should stop pretending to.
Pakistan's positions are clear - where is the pretense?


As long as you can convince the NSG with that argument, sure.
That is the point though, the US is the most influential member of the NSG and it has made clear that it will continue its double standards WRT Pakistan and will not consider an NSG exemption for Pakistan.

It's already been answered by other members, but again, lack of evidence is just that, lack of evidence. Nothing more.
Lack of evidence determines innocence, otherwise you and the others taking this position need to also start giving a degree of credibility to the 9/11 conspiracy theories.


Just with the slight difference of Binnie boy actually being caught living in a Pakistani garrison town and Haqqani, Hekmatyar, Mullah Omar and Co. enjoying Pakistani hospitality for more than a decade.
And the 9/11 hijackers lived, trained, received funding and carried out their attacks in the US ...

Agnostic Muslim
20 Nov 12,, 16:57
HORSE PUCKEY!!!! ACCORDING TO YOUR VERY OWN POSTS! PAKISTAN REJECTED CHINESE DESIGNS AND WENT WITH THEIR OWN!
Not sure which posts you are referring to, but are you referring to the arguments based on the latest weapons designs proliferation investigators found, that suggested that the Pakistani bomb design had improved significantly from what was previously known? If that account is true, then certainly Pakistan has a more advanced nuclear capability compared to the outdated Chinese designs obtained from the Libyans.

But that said, are you going to argue that the Pakistani proliferation network operated by AQ Khan, which was primarily used to obtain nuclear technology for Pakistan from around the world, played no such role?


As far as Israel is concerned, I CHALLENGED YOU TO show me that Isareli nukes are more advanced than Pakistani nukes ... which REJECTED CHINESE DESIGNS according to you!
Again, I cannot recall getting into a discussion with you on Israeli nukes being more advanced than Pakistani nukes, and I am certainly not making any such claim on this thread - I am merely pointing out that proliferation by Western nations, Russia and China to Israel and Pakistan dwarfs the proliferation AQ Khan conducted to Libya, Iran and NK, and despite that proliferation record, those nations are still part of the NSG, which makes the refusal to provide Pakistan an NSG exemption on the basis of the proliferation argument hypocritical and flawed.

Agnostic Muslim
20 Nov 12,, 16:59
And yet you want the international community to trust and respect an institution, that is the Pakistani State, which has failed to keep its house clean and in order?:frown:
The international communities own investigations have found no evidence of Pakistani institutional complicity, so I expect the international community to abide by the rule of law and accept the fact that they have no evidence and stop smearing Pakistan by making speculative allegations.

Tronic
20 Nov 12,, 21:13
My point is that the US did no favors to Pakistan - US aid to Pakistan was and is in exchange for Pakistani support on various issues.

Than why crib about "betrayal" and whatnot? When you lay claim to a "transactional" relationship, "betrayal" doesn't come into the picture by a long shot. You got your money, you got your weapons, end of story.


I actually detailed what the 'anti-Pakistan US position' entails but perhaps I need to list it again to make it clearer:

1. Supporting/sheltering terrorists groups such as the Baloch terrorist groups (sheltering Bugti) and the TTP (sheltering the TTP/Mullah FM)

Try asking Afghanistan for them; I'm sure there can be an exchange arranged in return for Haqqani, Hekmatyar and Omar. ;)


2. Refusing to categorically and officially accept the UN recognized Afghan-Pakistan international border and make clear to the Afghans that they would not get any support from the US on that issue and needed to take their claims to an international body like the UN or ICJ if they continued to insist on their claims.

** I do have to clarify that Grossman made some reference in support of the Pakistani position in some private comments he made in Afghanistan earlier this year, which riled the Afghans no end apparently, but this is still a far cry from a clear official US statement on the issue of the Durand Line.

From your own media:
Durand Line is international border, says US diplomat | DAWN.COM (http://dawn.com/2012/11/02/durand-line-is-international-border-says-us-diplomat/)
US reaffirms international status of Durand Line | DAWN.COM (http://dawn.com/2012/10/24/us-reaffirms-international-status-of-durand-line/)
Durand Line is border, says US | DAWN.COM (http://dawn.com/2012/10/25/durand-line-is-border-says-us/)

Find something else to crib about. :rolleyes:

**Grossman and the US have publicly stood by that statement, so if you're not satisfied with that, tough luck.


3. Discriminatory treatment on the international scene with respect to civilian nuclear technology.

It's not discriminatory if you realize what position you are talking from. Pakistan proliferated nuclear tech, and that's the bottom line. You can't throw a fit and roll on the ground for your candy each time.


4. Continued military operations inside Pakistani territory in violation of international law and the UN Charter.

It's not in violation of international law as long as Haqqanis, Hekmatyar and Omar continue to operate from there.


Pakistan's positions are clear - where is the pretense?

The pretense is in you taking the aid when you're not even fighting the same war.


That is the point though, the US is the most influential member of the NSG and it has made clear that it will continue its double standards WRT Pakistan and will not consider an NSG exemption for Pakistan.

What have you done in the past decade to deserve an NSG exemption?


Lack of evidence determines innocence, otherwise you and the others taking this position need to also start giving a degree of credibility to the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

If you're arguing Pakistan's case from a lawyer's perspective, yes, but when was the last time that lawyer's aspired trust?


And the 9/11 hijackers lived, trained, received funding and carried out their attacks in the US ...

Bottom line, "carried out their attacks in the US". Pakistan exports terror, so it is not the same thing.

Deltacamelately
21 Nov 12,, 08:41
The international communities own investigations have found no evidence of Pakistani institutional complicity, so I expect the international community to abide by the rule of law and accept the fact that they have no evidence and stop smearing Pakistan by making speculative allegations.
Let me be blunt. If indeed the US Intelligence Agencies had corroborative evidence of Pakistani institutional complicity, Rawalpindi would already be in ashes. Having said that, the lack of evidence is still not sufficient for the rest of the world not to be suspicious and wary of Pakistan/ISI/PA. The same lack of evidence doesn't translates into trust, enough to give you hand-outs, such as an NSG exception and sundry. Get real.

Officer of Engineers
22 Nov 12,, 06:14
Not sure which posts you are referring to, but are you referring to the arguments based on the latest weapons designs proliferation investigators found, that suggested that the Pakistani bomb design had improved significantly from what was previously known? If that account is true, then certainly Pakistan has a more advanced nuclear capability compared to the outdated Chinese designs obtained from the Libyans.Your words


AQ Khan did nothing compared to the European, Russian and Chinese proliferation activities that resulted in functioning, and still improving, nuclear weapons programs in Israel and Pakistan, so if proliferation of nuclear weapons technology is the issue, then Pakistan is nowhere close to being at the top of the list of 'proliferation sinners'.So, you just stated that Pakistani designs are now ahead of initial Chinese designs provided and judging from Chagai-I with zero help from the Chinese. In other words, the Chinese have stopped helping your nuclear weapons program since the 80s.

As far as Israel is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence - none, nadda, zilch, not even a shred of evidence, not even a rumour of a suggested theft, just some vague suggestion with zero concrete examples of anything.





But that said, are you going to argue that the Pakistani proliferation network operated by AQ Khan, which was primarily used to obtain nuclear technology for Pakistan from around the world, played no such role?With the exceptions allowed by the NPT of nuclear weapons sharing during the times of nuclear war and nuclear weapons trade between the N5, no nuclear weapons designs have ever passed onto non-N5 powers, theft or otherwise.


Again, I cannot recall getting into a discussion with you on Israeli nukes being more advanced than Pakistani nukes, and I am certainly not making any such claim on this thread - I am merely pointing out that proliferation by Western nations, Russia and China to Israel and Pakistan dwarfs the proliferation AQ Khan conducted to Libya, Iran and NK, and despite that proliferation record, those nations are still part of the NSG, which makes the refusal to provide Pakistan an NSG exemption on the basis of the proliferation argument hypocritical and flawed.Your knowledge is incomplete, based on rumour, and innuendo.

For a detailed discussion about Israeli nukes, examine this thread

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/middle-east-north-africa/63013-isareli-nuclear-weapons-existence-capability.html

Agnostic Muslim
28 Nov 12,, 15:54
Than why crib about "betrayal" and whatnot? When you lay claim to a "transactional" relationship, "betrayal" doesn't come into the picture by a long shot. You got your money, you got your weapons, end of story.
The same argument applies on your end - why crib about Pakistani betrayal and what not and paint the US as Pakistan's 'benefactor' when the facts are that US aid has always been in exchange for Pakistani support on various issues - you raised this line of argument, not me.


Try asking Afghanistan for them; I'm sure there can be an exchange arranged in return for Haqqani, Hekmatyar and Omar. ;)
We have been asking for them for years (Musharraf was ridiculed for raising this issue and Pakistan called paranoid and clinging to conspiracy theories), and now that US diplomatic cables clearly show knowledge of the sheltering of these terrorists at the highest levels of the US and Afghan governments, the evidence of US/Afghan sheltering of terrorists is irrefutable.



From your own media:
Durand Line is international border, says US diplomat | DAWN.COM (http://dawn.com/2012/11/02/durand-line-is-international-border-says-us-diplomat/)
US reaffirms international status of Durand Line | DAWN.COM (http://dawn.com/2012/10/24/us-reaffirms-international-status-of-durand-line/)
Durand Line is border, says US | DAWN.COM (http://dawn.com/2012/10/25/durand-line-is-border-says-us/)

Find something else to crib about. :rolleyes:

**Grossman and the US have publicly stood by that statement, so if you're not satisfied with that, tough luck.
All those links related to Grossman's statement that I referred to, and I will admit that I missed the statement by the State Department supporting Grossman's comments on the Durand Line, which is really the only one that counts in terms of an official US response. That said, it has taken a long time to come, and its timing at this point perhaps is indicative of greater behind the scenes cooperation on Afghanistan between the US and Pakistan.


It's not discriminatory if you realize what position you are talking from. Pakistan proliferated nuclear tech, and that's the bottom line.
China, Russia and the West proliferated nuclear technology as well, and resulted in at least two fully functioning nuclear weapons programs in Israel and Pakistan (I have read OOE's comments and will respond to them in a bit), so yes, the argument that Pakistan cannot be granted an NSG exemption because of its proliferation record is hypocritical and dishonest since several of the existing NSG members have engaged in far worse nuclear proliferation than AQ Khan.


It's not in violation of international law as long as Haqqanis, Hekmatyar and Omar continue to operate from there.
If your allegation is true then the US is free to argue its case in front of the UNSC and obtain UNSC Resolutions in favor of its acts of 'Self Defence against attacks by the Haqqanis, Hekmetyar and Omar'. In the absence of any UNSC sanction for US military operations inside Pakistan, the US is acting in violation of international law and the UN Charter and its provisions on Self Defence that require a member State acting in Self Defence to report its actions to the UN.


The pretense is in you taking the aid when you're not even fighting the same war.
That is your opinion, the US is free to stop providing assistance to Pakistan if it shares that view.

What have you done in the past decade to deserve an NSG exemption?
A rapidly expanding civilian nuclear power program and increased domestic production of various components used in civilian nuclear reactors.

If you're arguing Pakistan's case from a lawyer's perspective, yes, but when was the last time that lawyer's aspired trust?
I am arguing Pakistan's case from a legal and fact based perspective - are you suggesting that you have no trust or respect in the rule of law or facts?

Bottom line, "carried out their attacks in the US". Pakistan exports terror, so it is not the same thing.
'Pakistan exports terror' is a canard you put in there, as of yet unsubstantiated with respect to allegations that Pakistani institutions supported OBL and/or AQ.

If US intelligence could fail in detecting an large AQ cell living, training and receiving money from terrorists outside the US, and carrying out a massive terrorist attack simultaneously on multiple locations, then Pakistani intelligence, with far fewer resources can certainly suffer a similar lapse in not being able to find OBL.

Agnostic Muslim
28 Nov 12,, 15:58
Let me be blunt. If indeed the US Intelligence Agencies had corroborative evidence of Pakistani institutional complicity, Rawalpindi would already be in ashes. Having said that, the lack of evidence is still not sufficient for the rest of the world not to be suspicious and wary of Pakistan/ISI/PA. The same lack of evidence doesn't translates into trust, enough to give you hand-outs, such as an NSG exception and sundry. Get real.
So, after cutting through the rant, what you stated was that there is absolutely no evidence that Pakistani institutions were involved in sheltering OBL - if people want to survive on conspiracy theories and prejudice because of incessant anti-Pakistan propaganda in the Western media, then that is their choice, but please don't pretend that you have facts supporting your conspiracy theories.

An NSG exemption is not a 'handout' - it would merely allow Pakistan to trade in civilian nuclear technology with other NSG members (if they desired to) on a commercial basis. Given that there are multiple nations on the NSG currently that have committed far worse proliferation than Pakistan has, the current argument against granting Pakistan an NSG exemption is hypocritical and dishonest.

Agnostic Muslim
28 Nov 12,, 16:30
Your words

So, you just stated that Pakistani designs are now ahead of initial Chinese designs provided and judging from Chagai-I with zero help from the Chinese. In other words, the Chinese have stopped helping your nuclear weapons program since the 80s.

As far as Israel is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence - none, nadda, zilch, not even a shred of evidence, not even a rumour of a suggested theft, just some vague suggestion with zero concrete examples of anything.

With the exceptions allowed by the NPT of nuclear weapons sharing during the times of nuclear war and nuclear weapons trade between the N5, no nuclear weapons designs have ever passed onto non-N5 powers, theft or otherwise.

Your knowledge is incomplete, based on rumour, and innuendo.

For a detailed discussion about Israeli nukes, examine this thread

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/middle-east-north-africa/63013-isareli-nuclear-weapons-existence-capability.html

I can only comment on the publicly available reports that suggested a significantly smaller and more advanced warhead design allegedly developed by Pakistan, discovered by nuclear proliferation investigators. I do not know if the report is true since Pakistan has not officially commented on it and I do not have any more details about the status of Pakistani nuclear weapons design.

There are plenty of reports of French assistance for the Israeli nuclear program, distinct from assistance for an Israeli nuclear weapons program. I have not argued that Israel received direct assistance for a nuclear warhead, but that Israel and Pakistan both were at the receiving ends of nuclear technology sourced from the West and China. I am sure you would agree that a fully functioning nuclear weapons program is not merely about designing a functioning warhead, and requires a nation to reasonably master all the associated technology and processes of producing the necessary fuel used in the warhead. The publicly available reports I have read indicate that Israel did receive assistance from European sources for its civilian nuclear program. The argument that I am making here is that Pakistan is accused of proliferating nuclear technology to other nations, but that proliferation was overwhelmingly for technology such as centrifuges etc. which have a use in civilian nuclear programs, and current members of the NSG have proliferated far more nuclear technology (China apparently a bomb design, given the incomplete blueprints provided by the Libyans) than Pakistan, so why continue with the canard that Pakistan has the worst proliferation record in the world?

Officer of Engineers
28 Nov 12,, 19:23
I can only comment on the publicly available reports that suggested a significantly smaller and more advanced warhead design allegedly developed by Pakistan, discovered by nuclear proliferation investigators. I do not know if the report is true since Pakistan has not officially commented on it and I do not have any more details about the status of Pakistani nuclear weapons design.You can be certain that the Pakistanis have worked or are still working on correcting their own flaws.


There are plenty of reports of French assistance for the Israeli nuclear program, distinct from assistance for an Israeli nuclear weapons program. I have not argued that Israel received direct assistance for a nuclear warhead, but that Israel and Pakistan both were at the receiving ends of nuclear technology sourced from the West and China.If you want to go that route, Canada gave India her nukes. The US gave the UK and France theirs. Russia gave China hers.


I am sure you would agree that a fully functioning nuclear weapons program is not merely about designing a functioning warhead, and requires a nation to reasonably master all the associated technology and processes of producing the necessary fuel used in the warhead. The publicly available reports I have read indicate that Israel did receive assistance from European sources for its civilian nuclear program.If it were that easy, Pakistan would have a functional arsenal in 1998, North Korea would have 100 nukes. And I would not be doubting the existence of an Israeli thermonuclear design.


The argument that I am making here is that Pakistan is accused of proliferating nuclear technology to other nations, but that proliferation was overwhelmingly for technology such as centrifuges etc. which have a use in civilian nuclear programs, and current members of the NSG have proliferated far more nuclear technology (China apparently a bomb design, given the incomplete blueprints provided by the Libyans) than Pakistan, so why continue with the canard that Pakistan has the worst proliferation record in the world?There are no nuclear weapons trade outside the N5 and even dual use technology is traded amongst NSG members themselves. To date, no dual use technology has ever been sold to India nor has India requested such.

Agnostic Muslim
28 Nov 12,, 22:38
You can be certain that the Pakistanis have worked or are still working on correcting their own flaws.

If you want to go that route, Canada gave India her nukes. The US gave the UK and France theirs. Russia gave China hers.

If it were that easy, Pakistan would have a functional arsenal in 1998, North Korea would have 100 nukes. And I would not be doubting the existence of an Israeli thermonuclear design.

There are no nuclear weapons trade outside the N5 and even dual use technology is traded amongst NSG members themselves. To date, no dual use technology has ever been sold to India nor has India requested such.

I apologize if I was not clear in my previous posts, but my argument about the West, Russia and China being far bigger proliferators of nuclear technology, compared to Pakistan, was made in the context of transfers of technology for centrifuges and various other aspects of a nuclear program other than the warhead itself - of course that is excluding the data provided by the Libyans that indicates China provided a non-functioning nuclear warhead design to either Pakistan or Pakistan and Libya. The whole point of my argument is that the AQ Khan network is being used as to bolster the 'Pakistan is the worlds worst nuclear proliferator' canard to justify unequal treatment of Pakistan at the NSG, despite the fact the history's biggest nuclear technology proliferators are already a part of the NSG.

If the NSG was really concerned about nuclear proliferation, controls over trade in dual use technology and requirements for strict international inspections of all NSG related trade would probably be far more useful.

Officer of Engineers
28 Nov 12,, 23:49
I apologize if I was not clear in my previous posts, but my argument about the West, Russia and China being far bigger proliferators of nuclear technology, compared to Pakistan, was made in the context of transfers of technology for centrifuges and various other aspects of a nuclear program other than the warhead itself - of course that is excluding the data provided by the Libyans that indicates China provided a non-functioning nuclear warhead design to either Pakistan or Pakistan and Libya.It was a CICH-4. Hardly non-functioning.


The whole point of my argument is that the AQ Khan network is being used as to bolster the 'Pakistan is the worlds worst nuclear proliferator' canard to justify unequal treatment of Pakistan at the NSG, despite the fact the history's biggest nuclear technology proliferators are already a part of the NSG.Extremely misleading. Nuclear trade is conducted amongst NPT members, all legally allowed by both the NPT and the NSG. All designed to avoid a nuclear weapons trade while allowing a nuclear energy trade.

AQ Khan is all about weapons trade - PERIOD.


If the NSG was really concerned about nuclear proliferation, controls over trade in dual use technology and requirements for strict international inspections of all NSG related trade would probably be far more useful.They are. Why do you think Iran is so much trouble? And why Iran went to Pakistan to get her stuff?

lemontree
29 Nov 12,, 10:06
Supporting/sheltering terrorists groups such as the Baloch terrorist groups (sheltering Bugti)....
They did that 'coz Pakistan was hiding OBL, the only difference was was Bugti was a freedom fighter, and OBL was a global terrorist and friend of Musharraf.


... and the TTP (sheltering the TTP/Mullah FM)
He is your dirt that you can't handle...the US has nothing to do with him.

Agnostic Muslim
30 Nov 12,, 13:35
It was a CICH-4. Hardly non-functioning.
I used the term 'non-functioning' in reference to the the available information suggesting that the design was 90-95% complete and missing some of the critical electronics.


Extremely misleading. Nuclear trade is conducted amongst NPT members, all legally allowed by both the NPT and the NSG. All designed to avoid a nuclear weapons trade while allowing a nuclear energy trade.
Then what is the basis for NSG opposition to the Chinese proposal to construct nuclear reactors in Pakistan?


AQ Khan is all about weapons trade - PERIOD.
Yet aside from the incomplete CICH-4 design, AQ Khan's network was not involved in any direct nuclear weapons design related assistance or exports. Centrifuges and other technologies with use in civilian nuclear programs is what his network was primarily involved in, though I agree that some/most of the technology he proliferated might have been dual use.


They are. Why do you think Iran is so much trouble? And why Iran went to Pakistan to get her stuff?
Then why is the US/NSG officially opposed to the proposed Chinese nuclear reactor construction in Pakistan, given that all the proposed NPP's will be under IAEA safeguards?

Agnostic Muslim
30 Nov 12,, 13:39
They did that 'coz Pakistan was hiding OBL, the only difference was was Bugti was a freedom fighter, and OBL was a global terrorist and friend of Musharraf.
Please take a look at the thread title and the previous posts on this thread - there is no evidence that Pakistani institutions were complicity in sheltering OBL or even knew where he was - contrast this to the US's own leaked diplomatic cables that clearly show high level US, Afghan and UN officials talking about Bugti's presence in Afghanistan and discussing Pakistani concerns about Baloch terrorists in Afghanistan.


He is your dirt that you can't handle...the US has nothing to do with him.
He has been hiding in Afghanistan - the US is the major military force occupying Afghanistan and therefore the responsibility for his presence there falls on the US.

Officer of Engineers
30 Nov 12,, 14:52
I used the term 'non-functioning' in reference to the the available information suggesting that the design was 90-95% complete and missing some of the critical electronics.The CICH-4 was a primitive big design. Pack enough explosives around the core to achieve critical mass. It's not that hard to figure out what's missing.


Then what is the basis for NSG opposition to the Chinese proposal to construct nuclear reactors in Pakistan?The same one that Russia did for India before the Indian exemption, that an NPT a NSG member is conducting trade outside the NPT and the NSG and there is a dispute whether the aid to Pakistan falls into the Grandfather clause.

However, whatever the case, the aid to Pakistan is definitely of Grandfather technology. There is nothing going in that is above 1970s technology.


Yet aside from the incomplete CICH-4 design, AQ Khan's network was not involved in any direct nuclear weapons design related assistance or exports. Centrifuges and other technologies with use in civilian nuclear programs is what his network was primarily involved in, though I agree that some/most of the technology he proliferated might have been dual use.Horse puckey, the Iranians got the Chagai-I designs, the very ones that was found in Switzerland.


Then why is the US/NSG officially opposed to the proposed Chinese nuclear reactor construction in Pakistan, given that all the proposed NPP's will be under IAEA safeguards?Because it is NOT under IAEA's safegurads.

Deltacamelately
30 Nov 12,, 15:20
So, after cutting through the rant, what you stated was
that there is absolutely no evidence that Pakistani institutions were involved in sheltering OBL - if people want to survive on conspiracy theories and prejudice because of incessant anti-Pakistan propaganda in the Western media, then that is their choice, but please don't pretend that you have facts supporting your conspiracy theories.
Did I really say there are corroborative evidence of Pakistani Institutional involvement?
Didn't I ALSO suggest that the lack of the same is NOT enough, NOT to be suspicious and wary of Pakistan/ISI/PA due to your EXCELLENT TRACK RECORD so far?

Comprehension problems? Its like the entire neighborhood is suspicious of you to be a thief due to some stolen article confiscated from your premise. Nobody has ANY corroborative evidence to prove you to be the thief. Does that qualifies you to claim the trust of your neighbors as your rightful felicity???


An NSG exemption is not a 'handout' - it would merely allow Pakistan to trade in civilian nuclear technology with other NSG members (if they desired to) on a commercial basis. Given that there are multiple nations on the NSG currently that have committed far worse proliferation than Pakistan has, the current argument against granting Pakistan an NSG exemption is hypocritical and dishonest.
Get real. The N-5 calls the shots. You have ZERO credibility to claim an equal. Even considering that France or China or both, DID really proliferate, still doesn't qualifies Pakistan to claim an equal. You are not N-5 and certainly not that innocent, that's the reality.

OTOH India got the deal because the global order found our track record clean and didn't consider us as something to be wary of. Period.

Agnostic Muslim
30 Nov 12,, 17:12
The CICH-4 was a primitive big design. Pack enough explosives around the core to achieve critical mass. It's not that hard to figure out what's missing.
Nonetheless, an incomplete design, and the Libyans apparently found it pretty hard to figure out.


The same one that Russia did for India before the Indian exemption, that an NPT a NSG member is conducting trade outside the NPT and the NSG and there is a dispute whether the aid to Pakistan falls into the Grandfather clause.
Which takes me back to my earlier point that the NSG restrictions on trade for NPT non-signatories are counter-productive because allowing such trade in exchange for inspections, regulations and restrictions on that trade and its uses would increase transparency.


Horse puckey, the Iranians got the Chagai-I designs, the very ones that was found in Switzerland.
I have read that there is speculation those designs could have been obtained by the Iranians and others given that they were found in a digital format, but I have not read any account that suggests conclusively that the Iranians have the design. My second question on that count would be whether the Chagai-I design was a Plutonium based design or not, because if it was the former, then that would not fit in with the Iranian drive to increase their Uranium enrichment capacity.


Because it is NOT under IAEA's safegurads.
That is incorrect:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2011/infcirc816.pdf

Agnostic Muslim
30 Nov 12,, 18:36
Nobody has ANY corroborative evidence to prove you to be the thief.
Thanks, based on that, please keep your smear campaigns and propaganda to yourself then.



Even considering that France or China or both, DID really proliferate, still doesn't qualifies Pakistan to claim an equal. You are not N-5 and certainly not that innocent, that's the reality.
France and China did proliferate nuclear technology, the Chinese apparently proliferated nuclear weapons technology - so if the NSG itself wants to argue that Pakistan's proliferation record is the reason the NSG is opposing an NSG exemption for Pakistan, then that argument is dishonest and hypocritical.


OTOH India got the deal because the global order found our track record clean and didn't consider us as something to be wary of. Period. India got the deal because the US and other Western nations saw it as a means of building a strategic relationship with India along with the potential economic windfall from selling India civilian nuclear technology and raw material.

Officer of Engineers
30 Nov 12,, 20:51
Nonetheless, an incomplete design, and the Libyans apparently found it pretty hard to figure out.The Libyans were nowhere close to even begin to figure things out. They were not even on the doorsteps of building a weapons lab, let alone a weapon. However, the Pakistanis sure figured it out.


Which takes me back to my earlier point that the NSG restrictions on trade for NPT non-signatories are counter-productive because allowing such trade in exchange for inspections, regulations and restrictions on that trade and its uses would increase transparency.The NSG came into existence precisely because of Smiling Buddha, that is that India used NPT members' technologies to build a nuke. Whatever else, it can be said that the NSG has halted nuclear weapons trade from NPT members to non-NPT members, even if it was unwittingly.


I have read that there is speculation those designs could have been obtained by the Iranians and others given that they were found in a digital format, but I have not read any account that suggests conclusively that the Iranians have the design. My second question on that count would be whether the Chagai-I design was a Plutonium based design or not, because if it was the former, then that would not fit in with the Iranian drive to increase their Uranium enrichment capacity.The accusation was first made by AQ Khan in his leaked memoirs. Simon Henderson, in his research to verify AQ Khan's claims, revealed that a Pakistani General independently informed him that AQ Khan has transferred the blueprints without knowing anything about AQ Khan's memoirs.

Chagai-I was uranium based. The one Pu sample has been explained as fall out from the Indian Pok-II test.


That is incorrect:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2011/infcirc816.pdfI stand corrected.

Officer of Engineers
01 Dec 12,, 17:35
France and China did proliferate nuclear technology, the Chinese apparently proliferated nuclear weapons technology - so if the NSG itself wants to argue that Pakistan's proliferation record is the reason the NSG is opposing an NSG exemption for Pakistan, then that argument is dishonest and hypocritical.No signatory to the NPT has ever proliferate nuclear technology outside the NPT. What was done before was before they're signing the NPT.

Agnostic Muslim
01 Dec 12,, 17:45
No signatory to the NPT has ever proliferate nuclear technology outside the NPT. What was done before was before they're signing the NPT.

But since Pakistan is not a signatory to the NPT, I would argue that the same 'forgiveness for past acts of nuclear proliferation' should be extended to her ...

Officer of Engineers
01 Dec 12,, 17:51
But since Pakistan is not a signatory to the NPT, I would argue that the same 'forgiveness for past acts of nuclear proliferation' should be extended to her ...You betrayed Chinese trust and proliferated Chinese weapons technology.

You want to be treated like the NPT. Then, sign the NPT.

Agnostic Muslim
01 Dec 12,, 18:38
You betrayed Chinese trust and proliferated Chinese weapons technology.

You want to be treated like the NPT. Then, sign the NPT.
Extend that to all the NPT non-signatories then - apparently these conditions are selectively applied since I do not recall any condition about signing the NPT being applied to India when granting her the NSG exemption.

Officer of Engineers
01 Dec 12,, 20:01
Extend that to all the NPT non-signatories then - apparently these conditions are selectively applied since I do not recall any condition about signing the NPT being applied to India when granting her the NSG exemption.And encourage nuclear weapons proliferation? Not a chance in hell.

Agnostic Muslim
01 Dec 12,, 21:01
And encourage nuclear weapons proliferation? Not a chance in hell.
It has already been encouraged with the Chinese admission into the NSG.

Officer of Engineers
01 Dec 12,, 21:05
It has already been encouraged with the Chinese admission into the NSG.China's proliferation activities were before she signed the NPT. She has been a model citizen ever since, even reporting on Iranian nuclear activities and restricting dual use materials to Iran.

Try again.

Agnostic Muslim
01 Dec 12,, 21:51
China's proliferation activities were before she signed the NPT. She has been a model citizen ever since, even reporting on Iranian nuclear activities and restricting dual use materials to Iran.

Try again.

In 1996, some in Congress called for sanctions after reports disclosed that China sold unsafeguarded ring magnets to Pakistan, apparently in violation of the NPT and in contradiction of U.S. laws, including the Arms Export Control Act (P.L. 90-629) and Export-Import Bank Act (P.L. 79-173), as amended by the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 (Title VIII of P.L. 103-236). On February 5, 1996, the Washington Times disclosed intelligence reports that the China National Nuclear Corporation, a state-owned corporation, transferred to the A.Q. Khan Research Laboratory in Kahuta, Pakistan, 5,000 ring magnets that can be used in gas centrifuges to enrich uranium. Reportedly, intelligence experts believed that the magnets provided to Pakistan were to be used in special suspension bearings at the top of rotating cylinders in the centrifuges. The New York Times, on May 12, 1996, reported that the shipment was made after June 1994 and was worth $70,000. The PRC company involved was China Nuclear Energy Industry Corporation, a subsidiary of the China National Nuclear Corporation. The State Department’s report on nonproliferation efforts in South Asia (issued on January 21, 1997) confirmed that “between late 1994 and mid-1995, a Chinese entity transferred a large number of ring magnets to Pakistan for use in its uranium enrichment program.”

The Clinton Administration’s decision-making was complicated by considerations of U.S. corporations doing business in China. Officials reportedly considered imposing then waiving sanctions or focusing sanctions only on the China National Nuclear Corporation, rather than large-scale sanctions affecting the entire PRC government and U.S. companies, such as Westinghouse Electric Corporation (which had deals pending with China National Nuclear Corporation) and Boeing Aircraft Company. In February 1996, Secretary of State Warren Christopher instructed the Export-Import Bank to suspend financing for commercial deals in China for one month, reported the New York Times (February 29, 1996). Christopher reportedly required time to obtain more information to determine whether sanctions would be required. Meanwhile, DCI John Deutch reportedly said at a White House meeting that PRC officials at some level likely approved the sale of magnets. Defense Secretary William Perry supported this view, but officials of the Commerce and Treasury Departments and the U.S. Trade Representative argued there was lack of solid proof, according to the Washington Post (April 1, 1996).

On May 10, 1996, the State Department announced that China and Pakistan would not be sanctioned, citing a new agreement with China. Clinton Administration officials said that China promised to provide future assistance only to safeguarded nuclear facilities, reaffirmed its commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, and agreed to consultations on export control and proliferation issues. The Administration also said that PRC leaders insisted they were not aware of the magnet transfer and that there was no evidence that the PRC government had willfully aided or abetted Pakistan’s nuclear weapon program through the magnet transfer. Thus, the State Department announced that sanctions were not warranted, and Export-Import Bank considerations of loans for U.S. exporters to China were returned to normal.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL31555.pdf


The highlighted part is basically the same argument Pakistani political and military leaders have made, that they did not sanction AQ Khan's outward nuclear proliferation.

Officer of Engineers
01 Dec 12,, 22:00
China's signature to the NPT was 1992. It took a full five years for China to come into full compliance with the NPT, namely bureaucratic and accounting practices. As such, the ring magnets were not on China's own forbidden list until afterwards when the Americans raised the fuss.

Whether AQ Khan was alone or not really ignores the point that Pakistan does not qualify for an NSG exemption. You want NSG exemption? Dismantle your nukes and sign the NPT.

Agnostic Muslim
01 Dec 12,, 22:08
China's signature to the NPT was 1992. It took a full five years for China to come into full compliance with the NPT, namely bureaucratic and accounting practices. As such, the ring magnets were not on China's own forbidden list until afterwards when the Americans raised the fuss.
If that was the case then why does the report above indicate that Chinese officials argued ignorance over the exports rather than stating outright that they were in the process of compliance and had not at that time blacklisted the technology being exported?


Whether AQ Khan was alone or not really ignores the point that Pakistan does not qualify for an NSG exemption. You want NSG exemption? Dismantle your nukes and sign the NPT.
AQ Khan acting alone puts Pakistan in a better position than China given that China used the 'ignorance' excuse and the US bought it, plus the fact that Pakistan never violated the NPT since it is not a signatory.

With respect to demands that Pakistan 'dismantle her nukes and sign the NPT', we come back to the earlier point that the same has not been asked of India.

Officer of Engineers
01 Dec 12,, 22:27
If that was the case then why does the report above indicate that Chinese officials argued ignorance over the exports rather than stating outright that they were in the process of compliance and had not at that time blacklisted the technology being exported?Because it was ignorance. You have two different sets of books trying to rectify themselves and the Chinese themselves did not even know that ring magnets were forbidden items.


AQ Khan acting alone puts Pakistan in a better position than China given that China used the 'ignorance' excuse and the US bought it, plus the fact that Pakistan never violated the NPT since it is not a signatory.Which means you had disastrously poor controls over your nuclear assets that AQ Khan even had access to Chagai-I warheads and managed to sneak them out of the country. Proliferation by ignorance is far more dangerous than proliferation by design. At the very least, the latter meant that you have thought things out. The former meant you forgot to lock the filing cabinets.

Plus, you gave nuke tech to Qaddafy, the Kims, and the Ayatollahs, all terror practitioners. Hardly a sign of responsible behavior.


With respect to demands that Pakistan 'dismantle her nukes and sign the NPT', we come back to the earlier point that the same has not been asked of India.India obliged by practically signing the CTBT.

Agnostic Muslim
03 Dec 12,, 13:19
Because it was ignorance. You have two different sets of books trying to rectify themselves and the Chinese themselves did not even know that ring magnets were forbidden items.
Once again OOE, the report from the CRS does not suggest that the ignorance being referred to was an 'ignorance of what constituted banned items under the NPT', rather it clearly indicates that the Chinese were arguing that their leadership was ignorant about the violations of the NPT committed by Chinese entities, which in turn suggests that the argument you made below with respect to Pakistan applies to some degree to China as well, "which means China had disastrously poor controls over her nuclear assets allowing them to be taken out of the country without the alleged knowledge of her senior leadership'.


Which means you had disastrously poor controls over your nuclear assets that AQ Khan even had access to Chagai-I warheads and managed to sneak them out of the country. Proliferation by ignorance is far more dangerous than proliferation by design. At the very least, the latter meant that you have thought things out. The former meant you forgot to lock the filing cabinets.
Proliferation by 'ignorance', which is Pakistan's position on the outward proliferation by AQ Khan, can be rectified once the problem is identified, and information about the steps taken to rectify the issue can be provided to the international community (as Pakistan has done) without compromising national security.


Plus, you gave nuke tech to Qaddafy, the Kims, and the Ayatollahs, all terror practitioners. Hardly a sign of responsible behavior.
AQ Khan gave technology to those entities, much as the Swiss scientist Tinner worked with Gaddafi as to develop Libya's nuclear program - the role of the two individuals in proliferating to certain entities does not automatically implicate the nations they hail from.


India obliged by practically signing the CTBT.
When did India sign the CTBT? If you are referring to her voluntary moratorium on nuclear tests, then I can point to a similar one by Pakistan:

"President Bill Clinton and Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee issued a joint statement September 15 reaffirming India's voluntary suspension of nuclear testing pending entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and its commitment not to block the treaty's entry into force. In an apparent response, Pakistan said it would also maintain its testing moratorium until the CTBT enters into force...

... Mirroring India's pledge, at a September 25 news conference Pakistani Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar said, "Pending CTBT entry into force, Pakistan will maintain its moratorium and refrain from further tests unless another extraordinary event occurs that jeopardizes [its] security interests." According to the Pakistani embassy in Washington, the statement represents an "enhancement" of Pakistan's CTBT policy because it affixes a time frame to the initially "open-ended" moratorium imposed after Pakistan's nuclear tests in May 1998."

India Reaffirms Its CTBT Policy, Pakistan Follows | Arms Control Association (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_10/indpakoct00)

Officer of Engineers
03 Dec 12,, 14:30
Once again OOE, the report from the CRS does not suggest that the ignorance being referred to was an 'ignorance of what constituted banned items under the NPT', rather it clearly indicates that the Chinese were arguing that their leadership was ignorant about the violations of the NPT committed by Chinese entities, which in turn suggests that the argument you made below with respect to Pakistan applies to some degree to China as well, "which means China had disastrously poor controls over her nuclear assets allowing them to be taken out of the country without the alleged knowledge of her senior leadership'.You're not reading me. Prior to signing of the NPT, the Chinese had no problems selling ring magnets or other restricted materials such as heavy water to India. The bureaucracy was not in place either in oversight nor knowledge of restrictions amongst both the businesses and the overseeing authorities.


Proliferation by 'ignorance', which is Pakistan's position on the outward proliferation by AQ Khan, can be rectified once the problem is identified, and information about the steps taken to rectify the issue can be provided to the international community (as Pakistan has done) without compromising national security.These are warhead blueprints! Not ring magnets nor heavy water.


AQ Khan gave technology to those entities, much as the Swiss scientist Tinner worked with Gaddafi as to develop Libya's nuclear program - the role of the two individuals in proliferating to certain entities does not automatically implicate the nations they hail from.Of course it does. I don't take everything AQ Khan said to be the truth but once supported by an outside source, in this case, Henderson's Pakistani General, it meant that AQ Khan had no need to know and still had access.


When did India sign the CTBT? If you are referring to her voluntary moratorium on nuclear tests, then I can point to a similar one by Pakistan:The 123 Agreement is null and void once India tests. So does American support for India's NSG exemption and all materials would be withdrawn if India tests.

Blademaster
04 Dec 12,, 00:17
The 123 Agreement is null and void once India tests. So does American support for India's NSG exemption and all materials would be withdrawn if India tests.

And so far, India has not purchase any equipments from the Western powers so to speak. Therefore, I find your argument of being bound to CTBT to be lacking.

Officer of Engineers
04 Dec 12,, 00:20
And so far, India has not purchase any equipments from the Western powers so to speak. Therefore, I find your argument of being bound to CTBT to be lacking.Hitesh, stop twisting the facts. You and I both know that the Hyde Act kills 123 upon an Indian test.

After that, the US is obligated to withdraw all technologies from India, including those supplied by the NSG ... this essentially means everything.

Find me a piece of nuclear technology that India wants that does not have a US patent on it.

India tests. She loses the NSG. PERIOD.

Blademaster
04 Dec 12,, 06:29
Once India gets the fast breeder technology going, there is no need for NSG. US patents are only enforceable in US courts. What is the US going to do if Indian companies start manufacturing indigenous nuclear technology products?

Blademaster
04 Dec 12,, 06:30
Hitesh, stop twisting the facts. You and I both know that the Hyde Act kills 123 upon an Indian test.

After that, the US is obligated to withdraw all technologies from India, including those supplied by the NSG ... this essentially means everything.
.

Pray tell me how is US going to force India to give back the technology? :rolleyes: India survived sanctions before and got along fine.

Officer of Engineers
04 Dec 12,, 06:39
Pray tell me how is US going to force India to give back the technology? :rolleyes: India survived sanctions before and got along fine.Hitesh, are you serious?

It's called intellectual property rights. It is enforced through Indian Courts. All sales will operate under both American and Indian Law and since the 123 Treaty states that both sides can withdraw simply by giving notice. Indian Courts will have no choice but to force Indian companies to return all equipment, software, and any copyright materials with American technologies in them. Indian courts will also obliged to stop any individual with American training to divulge their knowledge to the Indian nuclear industry.

This is the exact same method the NSG forced China not to give Pakistan anything above 1970 technologies. China does not own the IPR to anything more advance that they can give to Pakistan.

You're a lawyer. You should know better than this.

Whether India can survive without the NSG is besides the point. The point is that the US, knowingly, built safeguards into their support to India.

Officer of Engineers
04 Dec 12,, 06:44
Once India gets the fast breeder technology going, there is no need for NSG.I wish India all the best. I really do. If she succeeds, that means a new level of technology that the world can exploit and India can benefit.

But the sad truth is that Fast Breeder is an expensive and very possibly a losing bet. Other countries have looked into it and deemed it unprofitable.

Maybe India got an inside track, have some piece of inside knowledge that no one else came up ... but she has not produced a profitable method to date despite over 15 years of research.

There is some promise to Indian research ... but don't you find it odd that no one else is taking it up?


US patents are only enforceable in US courts.But any sale of technology includes IPR. India to date cannot sell her own version of Windows even though Microsoft was extremely late in getting an Indian patten.


What is the US going to do if Indian companies start manufacturing indigenous nuclear technology products?If it's better than American products, buy them. That has always been the case.

Officer of Engineers
04 Dec 12,, 07:03
Now that you mention it, I do recall one of the reasons for the lack of sales is precisely because Indian Intellectual property protection laws are lacking.

Monash
04 Dec 12,, 07:18
India is doing some interesting work[/I]ork with Thorium to. If they pull it off it will be their turn to worry about the IP riights

anil
04 Dec 12,, 10:36
The 123 act has only one interpretation and both the US and India have an agreement on it.

OoE, yes, the conditions are clear. The opposition political party in india did their part by voting against the deal but it went through regardless.

Though you need to understand that the indian media works as a subsidiary of the ruling regime very similar to the PRC mouthpieces in china. The media provides a different interpretation of the 123 act as it is primarily meant for indian public consumption.

Double Edge
04 Dec 12,, 21:55
Now that you mention it, I do recall one of the reasons for the lack of sales is precisely because Indian Intellectual property protection laws are lacking.
I think its more due to the liability act that still remains to be passed. Presently if there is a nuclear accident the foreign suppler would also be liable as per Indian law. Though in time i imagine this will be crossed, there is a strong interest in nuclear tech for electricty generation. And big bucks to be made for the suppliers.

Double Edge
04 Dec 12,, 22:00
OoE, yes, the conditions are clear. The opposition political party in india did their part by voting against the deal but it went through regardless.
We need electricity to keep on growing into the future. Any opposition party would have signed that deal.


Though you need to understand that the indian media works as a subsidiary of the ruling regime very similar to the PRC mouthpieces in china.
The Indian media is anybody & everybody's mouthpiece. Getting a critical take on any issue takes much digging. Increasingly i have to resort to foreign takes to get a better picture. The real problem with indian media is a lack of viable foreign competition Our media isn't world class.

I'm very much for allowing more FDI into the current affairs sector, which is currently limited to only 26%. It needs to be upped to 51% for any foreign media house to give a damn.

bennett coleman argues that current affairs is a strategic sector but that's just another way of saying protectionism.


The media provides a different interpretation of the 123 act as it is primarily meant for indian public consumption.
All the people that mattered voiced support for the nuke deal. It was an acceptable compromise.

Bottomline is we still have our deterrent and can continue to work on it. In short, we can complete our triad.

MIRV'ing missiles or putting nukes in subs. That latter bit is going to have some interesting implications for our nuke doctrine. Do we let nukes on subs out of the ports or keep them in port. What about patrols. Issues with de-mating etc. Chinese will have to think these same issues out as well.

Blademaster
05 Dec 12,, 05:04
Hitesh, are you serious?

It's called intellectual property rights. It is enforced through Indian Courts. All sales will operate under both American and Indian Law and since the 123 Treaty states that both sides can withdraw simply by giving notice. Indian Courts will have no choice but to force Indian companies to return all equipment, software, and any copyright materials with American technologies in them. Indian courts will also obliged to stop any individual with American training to divulge their knowledge to the Indian nuclear industry.

This is the exact same method the NSG forced China not to give Pakistan anything above 1970 technologies. China does not own the IPR to anything more advance that they can give to Pakistan.

You're a lawyer. You should know better than this.

Whether India can survive without the NSG is besides the point. The point is that the US, knowingly, built safeguards into their support to India.

Not when it comes to national security or national interests. National interests trumps intellectual rights and there have been legal precedents here in the US and in Europe. Come on you know better than that. Ever heard of corporate espionage? You have western powers spying on each other and stealing each other trade secrets and etc.

Indian courts will not place American interests and rights over the interests of India's national security. You should also know that. As for safeguards, that is why India is not a willing buyer of American technology. They just signed the 123 agreement to get around the NSG legalities and trade with Russia and France. USA was never India's intended supplier but Russia and France.

Blademaster
05 Dec 12,, 05:06
I wish India all the best. I really do. If she succeeds, that means a new level of technology that the world can exploit and India can benefit.

But the sad truth is that Fast Breeder is an expensive and very possibly a losing bet. Other countries have looked into it and deemed it unprofitable.

Maybe India got an inside track, have some piece of inside knowledge that no one else came up ... but she has not produced a profitable method to date despite over 15 years of research.

There is some promise to Indian research ... but don't you find it odd that no one else is taking it up?

But any sale of technology includes IPR. India to date cannot sell her own version of Windows even though Microsoft was extremely late in getting an Indian patten.

If it's better than American products, buy them. That has always been the case.

True India cannot sell nuclear technology abroad but at least India can satisfy the most pressing needs of India and its population without sacrificing its national security interests. Besides the demand for nuclear energy in India is too great for India to start exporting nuclear technology abroad. Believe me, there are countries who would love to get around NSG safeguards and they are not even part of NSG.

anil
05 Dec 12,, 06:02
You want to see what the indian media really is, check out this funny interview. This will give a glimpse about the kind of role the it played during the indo-US nuke deal.

And India was Sold ..... (Part 3) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHvxMbvkn9k)

The guy in the red is a member of the hindu nationalist party, BJP. Both of them are making two different lines of arguments. The red guy is quoting from the agreement text and the interviewer is quoting "those quotes which are not quoted it the text".http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/images/darksmiles/tongue.gif

Sadly, I see this sort of elitist english speaking interviewers making this sort of foolish arguments all the time on the indian news channels. Someone needs to shut them down but the only way it could happen is if there is a regime change.

Agnostic Muslim
05 Dec 12,, 12:50
You're not reading me. Prior to signing of the NPT, the Chinese had no problems selling ring magnets or other restricted materials such as heavy water to India. The bureaucracy was not in place either in oversight nor knowledge of restrictions amongst both the businesses and the overseeing authorities.

I understand what your argument is, but where I disagree is with your interpretation of the CRS report that indicates Chinese leadership expressing 'ignorance about the NPT violations committed by Chinese entities in exporting restricted nuclear technology to Pakistan'. You are arguing that the 'ignorance' was related to bureaucratic issues rather than a deliberate violation of the NPT - would you be able to provide any sources that argue in favor of your interpretation of the Chinese violations in greater detail?


These are warhead blueprints! Not ring magnets nor heavy water.
Sure, just like the warhead blueprints provided to Pakistan by China - both nations provided nuclear weapons technology to other nations while not being part of the NPT.


Of course it does. I don't take everything AQ Khan said to be the truth but once supported by an outside source, in this case, Henderson's Pakistani General, it meant that AQ Khan had no need to know and still had access.
I agree that it was a massive failure in terms of security, but you should understand that AQ Khan was in a unique position by virtue of being the main individual responsible for running the network that obtained nuclear technology for the Pakistani nuclear program. His reputation and 'larger than life' image in Pakistan gave him a lot more influence and access than he deserved. But, as I pointed out, Pakistan, reportedly in cooperation with the US, has developed significant nuclear controls since then, and any negotiations with the NSG for an exemption would obviously require Pakistan to satisfy the international community that those controls are robust and will prevent another AQ Khan like incident in the future.


The 123 Agreement is null and void once India tests. So does American support for India's NSG exemption and all materials would be withdrawn if India tests.
If India's 'nuclear test ban' is linked to the 123 agreement, I personally would have no issues with a similar condition in a hypothetical NSG waiver for Pakistan - so, why the US refusal to not even start the ball moving in terms of negotiations on these various issues?

anil
05 Dec 12,, 15:59
If India's 'nuclear test ban' is linked to the 123 agreement, I personally would have no issues with a similar condition in a hypothetical NSG waiver for Pakistan - so, why the US refusal to not even start the ball moving in terms of negotiations on these various issues?
It doesn't work that way. The laws of basic commerce applies here.

If they(US) give you(pakistan) something, what can you give them in return?

Agnostic Muslim
05 Dec 12,, 16:15
It doesn't work that way. The laws of basic commerce applies here.

If they(US) give you(pakistan) something, what can you give them in return?

Individual agreements with NSG member States would follow that principle, but to engage in negotiations leading to individual agreements requires an NSG exemption to begin with.

The focus on the US is not necessarily because Pakistan would purchase technology directly from the US, but because US approval for an NSG exemption is necessary.

anil
05 Dec 12,, 16:28
US approval for an NSG exemption is necessary.
That was exactly my question. The US has the leverage to give pakistan an NSG exemption, but the question is, what can pakistan give the US in return?

Agnostic Muslim
05 Dec 12,, 17:24
That was exactly my question. The US has the leverage to give pakistan an NSG exemption, but the question is, what can pakistan give the US in return?
Increased commitments on safeguards and inspections along with more regulated trade, and greater cooperation from Pakistan on regional issues since such a step would indicate to Pakistan that the US does actually mean what it says when it talks about a long term partnership with Pakistan and accepting its status as a nuclear weapons State.

anil
05 Dec 12,, 18:36
Increased commitments on safeguards and inspections along with more regulated trade, and greater cooperation from Pakistan on regional issues since such a step would indicate to Pakistan that the US does actually mean what it says when it talks about a long term partnership with Pakistan and accepting its status as a nuclear weapons State.
Alright
Do you think the pakistani state can sell it?
How do you know what the US wants?

Officer of Engineers
05 Dec 12,, 19:00
Not when it comes to national security or national interests. National interests trumps intellectual rights and there have been legal precedents here in the US and in Europe. Come on you know better than that. Ever heard of corporate espionage? You have western powers spying on each other and stealing each other trade secrets and etc.Yes and they're taken to court and fine the bejeezus out of them. Microsoft can serve as the example.

However, the NSG Agreement is restricted to the civilian sector. You have a hard time convincing anyone that nationals security is at risk.

You also would have an extremely hard time to find a piece of French Nuclear technology without American patents in them.

I'm sure you can get by with Russia but the strange thing is that Russia offerred to grandfather all these exemptions before the NSG enacted the new rules. Enrichment technology is now off the table vis-a-vi non-NSG members though Russia is making the arguement that India has a blanket exemption (which I'd be careful because it's dependent on Putin's mode at the moment). But the point is that India did not take up Russia's grandfather offers.


Indian courts will not place American interests and rights over the interests of India's national security. You should also know that. As for safeguards, that is why India is not a willing buyer of American technology. They just signed the 123 agreement to get around the NSG legalities and trade with Russia and France. USA was never India's intended supplier but Russia and France.Whatever the case, the lack of sales has a lot to do with Indian legal protections not up to par vis-a-vi the rest of the NSG. What Russia and France were offerring is not what India wants. Otherwise, they would have accepted both Russian and French offers by now. The rest of the NSG is making it perfectly clear that they will sell to India but only on their terms ... and that would include no test.

Officer of Engineers
05 Dec 12,, 19:04
True India cannot sell nuclear technology abroad but at least India can satisfy the most pressing needs of India and its population without sacrificing its national security interests. Besides the demand for nuclear energy in India is too great for India to start exporting nuclear technology abroad. Believe me, there are countries who would love to get around NSG safeguards and they are not even part of NSG.I've been arguing for years that India would be better served if you clean up your power grid first. Your transmission losses are horrendous, never mind straight theft. Getting more nuclear reactors before cleaning your powergrid would mean those reactors would be sitting idle with the lines cannot handle the power transmissions.

Taking look at your current power outputs, recovering even half of your losses would give you time to avoid the NSG altogether.

Firestorm
05 Dec 12,, 19:14
Whatever the case, the lack of sales has a lot to do with Indian legal protections not up to par vis-a-vi the rest of the NSG. What Russia and France were offering is not what India wants. Otherwise, they would have accepted both Russian and French offers by now. The rest of the NSG is making it perfectly clear that they will sell to India but only on their terms ... and that would include no test.

India is buying French and Russian reactors. Agreements are already in place. More, importantly the fuel for these reactors is going to be imported. This is even more important for India than technology. India doesn't have too much Uranium, and whatever it does have needs to run the indigenous PHWR's which produce Plutonium.

The fuel for the Areva EPRs and the Russian VVER-1200 reactors could not be imported by India before the NSG exemption AFAIK. The only thing the French and Russians have a problem with is India's new liability law which makes Foreign suppliers liable in case of any disaster. Otherwise they are ready to sell reactors and India wants to buy them. It is only GE and co. which has lost out till now and there were some grumblings in the US about the 123 agreement not having any benefits for the US if India doesn't buy American reactors.

Officer of Engineers
05 Dec 12,, 19:16
I was speaking about grandfathering of the NSG exemption.

anil
05 Dec 12,, 19:39
The india US civilian nuclear deal was an agreement between india and USA. The agreement was made for a full nuclear co-operation aka complete NSG waiver

According to the deal, in 2008, the NSG lifted all restrictions on india

But in 2011, the NSG reimplemented the restriction on india that prohibited ENR sales to it because it was not a signatory to NPT

The deal got breached so the india US nuclear trade went in limbo

Agnostic Muslim
05 Dec 12,, 22:34
I've been arguing for years that India would be better served if you clean up your power grid first. Your transmission losses are horrendous, never mind straight theft. Getting more nuclear reactors before cleaning your powergrid would mean those reactors would be sitting idle with the lines cannot handle the power transmissions.

Taking look at your current power outputs, recovering even half of your losses would give you time to avoid the NSG altogether.
That is an extremely valid point applicable even more so in the case of Pakistan - most analysts agree that Pakistan's power shortages are not so much due to a lack of capacity, but due to a huge amount of circulating debt owed to the companies generating power as well as companies providing the fuel to the generating companies. Transmission line losses due to an outdated and inefficient system along with theft are yet another major issue, not to mention the fact that in its current economic state Pakistan would probably not be able to even finance NPP's from China. The quest for an NSG exemption has other less tangible rationale behind it.

Officer of Engineers
07 Dec 12,, 18:44
Let me get this straight.

You want something you can't use; don't need; can't afford; will only hinder you; invite legal spies into your nuclear facilities; interview your nuclear scientists including weaponeers (to make sure everything is kosher) ... just so that you keep up with the Jones in India?

Double Edge
07 Dec 12,, 23:16
You want to see what the indian media really is, check out this funny interview. This will give a glimpse about the kind of role the it played during the indo-US nuke deal.
Devils advocate is one of the better shows in the indian media. Used to watch it regularly for years.

Too bad they pulled his daily India tonight segment on CNBC-18 this year. Really liked that one. Hope it comes back.


And India was Sold ..... (Part 3) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHvxMbvkn9k)

The guy in the red is a member of the hindu nationalist party, BJP. Both of them are making two different lines of arguments. The red guy is quoting from the agreement text and the interviewer is quoting "those quotes which are not quoted it the text".http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/images/darksmiles/tongue.gif
That 'guy' is Arun Shourie, a spent force since his heyday at the IE in the early 90s. Didn't you ask yourself why there is a politician there. Natually he will say what his party tells him to. This is nothing but the opposition trying to make arguments. If the BJP was in office and Bush came over with the deal i bet they would have taken it as well. And then we would have seen UPA making the same opposition along with the commies.

The commies are the only party with an idealogical position, everybody else is a damn opportunist. Same nakra we saw with FDI this week. And we will see the same again when the nuke liability bill comes up.


Sadly, I see this sort of elitist english speaking interviewers making this sort of foolish arguments all the time on the indian news channels. Someone needs to shut them down but the only way it could happen is if there is a regime change.
No, you actually don't. I wish we had more but you mostly see far worse than him. That is the sad part for me.

Karan is the only world class presenter we have. The value of his Oxford education puts him head and shoulders over the rest.

There is something you don't know, his critics say there are two high commissioners of Pakistan in Delhi, Karan is the second one. This is why the partisans don't like him ;)

So it comes as no surprise to see what it says on his father's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pran_Nath_Thapar) wiki page. I guess the partisans have already had a swipe at it. AFAIK he resigned in '59 as the then govt would not approve his requests. His father did not play a role in the '62 war.

Double Edge
08 Dec 12,, 00:01
I've been arguing for years that India would be better served if you clean up your power grid first. Your transmission losses are horrendous, never mind straight theft. Getting more nuclear reactors before cleaning your powergrid would mean those reactors would be sitting idle with the lines cannot handle the power transmissions.

Taking look at your current power outputs, recovering even half of your losses would give you time to avoid the NSG altogether.
You have to account for politicos that 'gift' power to constituents. If farmers cannot pump water and have a failed harvest we end up with suicides.

That along with theft makes up the bulk of losses. This is an unmentioned subsidy.

It will not go away even with nuke power so we have to grow the pie.

Firestorm
08 Dec 12,, 01:53
So it comes as no surprise to see what it says on his father's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pran_Nath_Thapar) wiki page. I guess the partisans have already had a swipe at it. AFAIK he resigned in '59 as the then govt would not approve his requests. His father did not play a role in the '62 war.[/I]

I did not see the video linked by anil. Whoever has said the above has no idea what they are talking about. The COAS who resigned (temporarily) in 1959 because of the pigheadedness of Menon and Nehru was General KS Thimayya, one of the finest Generals the IA has seen. Gen P.N. Thapar was the COAS during the 1962 war, and resigned after the defeat.

As for Karan Thapar, the description of his being the "second Pakistani High Commissioner in New Delhi" is very apt.

Firestorm
08 Dec 12,, 02:31
I've been arguing for years that India would be better served if you clean up your power grid first. Your transmission losses are horrendous, never mind straight theft. Getting more nuclear reactors before cleaning your powergrid would mean those reactors would be sitting idle with the lines cannot handle the power transmissions.

Taking look at your current power outputs, recovering even half of your losses would give you time to avoid the NSG altogether.
Improving transmission efficiency would require a massive investment to replace the creaking old infrastructure. Politicians find it much cheaper and more politically rewarding to announce the construction of new power plants in front of the power-starved voters.

In any case, India's power shortfall is so huge, merely reducing transmission losses is never going to be enough.

antimony
08 Dec 12,, 05:49
You have to account for politicos that 'gift' power to constituents. If farmers cannot pump water and have a failed harvest we end up with suicides.

That along with theft makes up the bulk of losses. This is an unmentioned subsidy.

It will not go away even with nuke power so we have to grow the pie.

Indian agriculture needs massive scale reform. Farming needs to be made profitable again.

anil
08 Dec 12,, 06:51
Double Edge,
The india US nuke deal might be scrapped or might go into a permanent limbo over discussions if the BJP comes to power. I see a similar happening with the FDI. The division is that strong and there will be revenge. Recall how the SP came to power and undid almost everything done by the BSP.

This is what happens when a so-called majority party storms its bills by exploiting coalition politics.

And oh yes, Karan Thapar is a donkey

Officer of Engineers
08 Dec 12,, 07:33
You have to account for politicos that 'gift' power to constituents. If farmers cannot pump water and have a failed harvest we end up with suicides.One mess leading to another. This goes beyond 123 and the NSG exempt and nothing the NPT members can do about it.


That along with theft makes up the bulk of losses. This is an unmentioned subsidy.Which makes absolutely no incentive on the part of the power supplier to upgrade his products. If you're stealing from me 24/7, why should I care about the daily brownout and weekly blackout?


It will not go away even with nuke power so we have to grow the pie.Problem is that your pie dish is cracked, getting brittle, falling apart, and it ain't bigger than before.



Improving transmission efficiency would require a massive investment to replace the creaking old infrastructure. Politicians find it much cheaper and more politically rewarding to announce the construction of new power plants in front of the power-starved voters.Sooner or later, it has to be done. It's a lot cheaper now before new power plants come on line when your load is easier to handle. When your lines become super hot, then replacing them becomes even more problematic.


In any case, India's power shortfall is so huge, merely reducing transmission losses is never going to be enough.Never suggested that it is but what I am suggesting is that you can delay needing the NSG long enough for your own industry to catch up to your needs. Work smarter, not harder ... and the place to start is your infrastructure.

Firestorm
08 Dec 12,, 08:02
Never suggested that it is but what I am suggesting is that you can delay needing the NSG long enough for your own industry to catch up to your needs. Work smarter, not harder ... and the place to start is your infrastructure.
The industry may well catch up but India will always need the NSG for more Uranium. India's own reserves aren't nearly enough.

anil
08 Dec 12,, 08:53
The industry may well catch up but India will always need the NSG for more Uranium. India's own reserves aren't nearly enough.
You don't understand what's happening.

India will cultivate an ass load of uranium in the long run "all by itself". The dilemma for the US and its puppet organizations are to "do something" or "do nothing". So instead of waiting it out where the US continues to command the world nations to deny selling india fission/fusion material and know how, it has tried to offer friendship to india by offering the civilian nuclear deal. However, independent india has observed the US very closely and the role it plays in world politics since the india-pakistan partition. India has already made up its mind.

BUT, in the short run, if india wants to import fission/fusion material and know how, it will have to become a subordinate to the world.

Officer of Engineers
08 Dec 12,, 14:33
The industry may well catch up but India will always need the NSG for more Uranium. India's own reserves aren't nearly enough.Your ur reserves are fine. Your production, however, sucks ... but that is another topic.

Vinod2070
08 Dec 12,, 17:02
And the 9/11 hijackers lived, trained, received funding and carried out their attacks in the US ...

There are many more potential hostiles who are living and training in USA.

As we speak. ;)

What do you suggest they do about it? ;)

Vinod2070
08 Dec 12,, 17:14
The fact is the bolded bit. The rest is nothing but your own spin on the fact and your personal opinion. Although I must say, it is amusing to see you stretching this from "Pakistani government complicity" (which even I do not believe) to "Pakistani institutional complicity" to cover the posterior of the army. :biggrin:

This seems quite amazing but is a constant narrative from several Pakistanis including AM.

Other countries have an army, PA has a country to itself. It is not just rhetoric.

Agnostic Muslim
09 Dec 12,, 17:45
There are many more potential hostiles who are living and training in USA.

As we speak. ;)

What do you suggest they do about it? ;)
I assume US Law enforcement and intelligence is doing what it should be, given the numerous cases, known of publicly, in which potential terrorist attacks have been thwarted.

Agnostic Muslim
09 Dec 12,, 17:48
This seems quite amazing but is a constant narrative from several Pakistanis including AM.

You are late to the conversation - Tronic's (and others) characterization of the US statement (that is the subject of this thread) has been corrected.

Tronic
09 Dec 12,, 23:23
You are late to the conversation - Tronic's (and others) characterization of the US statement (that is the subject of this thread) has been corrected.

No it hasn't. I'm in the middle of my final exams so I just don't have the time to respond. I'll get to it in a few days.

Agnostic Muslim
10 Dec 12,, 01:32
No it hasn't. I'm in the middle of my final exams so I just don't have the time to respond. I'll get to it in a few days.

Good luck with the exams.

Take your time. :)

lemontree
10 Dec 12,, 06:49
Double Edge,
The india US nuke deal might be scrapped or might go into a permanent limbo over discussions if the BJP comes to power.
I doubt that very much, BJPs posturing for the show window and what they know is good for the country is different.


I see a similar happening with the FDI. The division is that strong and there will be revenge.
BJP was the first to propose and get in FDI, so they can hardly complain. They need a stick to beat the ruling party and so they use any pretext.


Recall how the SP came to power and undid almost everything done by the BSP.
What did the SP undo?...SP has only ordered probes for activities during BSP's rule.


This is what happens when a so-called majority party storms its bills by exploiting coalition politics.
The opposition tends to disrupt all Parliamentary work and ensures that no legislation happens, to further their own politican ends.
The ruling party has used the greed and legal tangles of the regional parties to push through much needed legislation.

The opposition is an important part in the checks and balances of a democracy, but our opposition behaves like a spoilt brat.


And oh yes, Karan Thapar is a donkey
On what grounds do you call him a donkey?...

anil
10 Dec 12,, 08:20
lemontree, these questions are simple and they have simple answers. You only have to use your brain.

All parties say a lot of things but the party's action part determines its actual intent. How do we know that BJP is against FDI? because they voted against it. Aroon shourie is the my baap of disinvestment and if the BJP wanted it then it would have been done already.

If you look clearly, both FDI and the nuke deal have no actual consent or consensus in reality. This is what makes them unreliable. In simple words, the bills brought in by the incumbent regime are valid only till a regime change.

But it is something more important than congress. More than half a century of congress rule achieved through coalition politics is a perfect case against democracy. The viability of democracy lies with its people. I'll just say this... a coup of any kind will have the peoples blessings.


On what grounds do you call him a donkey?...
Karan Thapars shows are nothing more than a demonstration of polished english between two equal elitist snobs lacking any kind of substance. The entire 30-60mins performance is just too comical.

Agnostic Muslim
10 Dec 12,, 13:10
Let me get this straight.

You want something you can't use; don't need; can't afford; will only hinder you; invite legal spies into your nuclear facilities; interview your nuclear scientists including weaponeers (to make sure everything is kosher) ... just so that you keep up with the Jones in India?
Pakistan can operate/use NPP's, as demonstrated by KANUPP and Chashma. NPP's also offer Pakistan an opportunity to diversify its power generation away from the use of fossil fuels (Pakistan is also investing in wind and, to a lesser degree, solar). With respect to 'legal spies', I believe Pakistan is already required to invite them into our civilian nuclear facilities given that they are under IAEA safeguards.

Vinod2070
10 Dec 12,, 18:07
I assume US Law enforcement and intelligence is doing what it should be, given the numerous cases, known of publicly, in which potential terrorist attacks have been thwarted.

You are of course right.

I was just responding to your point:


And the 9/11 hijackers lived, trained, received funding and carried out their attacks in the US ...

How exactly can it be dealt more effectively (to your satisfaction) without also attractive negative attention from some very conscientious individuals and organizations (like CAIR)?

As an example, let's take major Nidal Hasan. You can of course make the same point about him. He was trained by the US army and he lived right there.

He was also very obviously a fanatic and oozing signals to that effect. So many of his colleagues and superiors could sense that.

No one dared to do anything about it. He even got his promotions as everybody was politically correct and afraid of the repercussions and accusations of Islamophobia that will be levied against anyone who dares speak the obvious.

So how can non Muslim countries realistically deal with these issues while not offending innocent people within Muslim communities?

Is that even realistically possible?

Should they bother?

Agnostic Muslim
10 Dec 12,, 20:28
You are of course right.

I was just responding to your point:

Which was a response to arguments trying to paint the Pakistani security failure in locating OBL prior to the Abbottabad raid as something 'unique' that was somehow 'evidence of Pakistani institutional complicity in sheltering OBL'. I merely pointed out that the US, with far greater economic and technological resources, and far better domestic law enforcement and political institutions, suffered from similar 'security and intelligence failures' as Pakistan, and a whole industry of conspiracy theories about the involvement of the CIA and/or Mossad in the 9/11 attacks has come about because of conspiracy theories and speculation.



How exactly can it be dealt more effectively (to your satisfaction) without also attractive negative attention from some very conscientious individuals and organizations (like CAIR)?

As an example, let's take major Nidal Hasan. You can of course make the same point about him. He was trained by the US army and he lived right there.

He was also very obviously a fanatic and oozing signals to that effect. So many of his colleagues and superiors could sense that.

No one dared to do anything about it. He even got his promotions as everybody was politically correct and afraid of the repercussions and accusations of Islamophobia that will be levied against anyone who dares speak the obvious.

So how can non Muslim countries realistically deal with these issues while not offending innocent people within Muslim communities?

Is that even realistically possible?

Should they bother?
What were the signals suggesting Nidal would commit a terrorist attack and why were they ignored? On the latter, I would like to know the official version of events from the investigations into Nidal rather than your opinions that 'political correctness and pressure from institutions like CAIR' were the reason those signals were missed/ignored.

Tronic
10 Dec 12,, 23:36
Good luck with the exams.

Thanks mate.

Blademaster
11 Dec 12,, 01:08
I doubt that very much, BJPs posturing for the show window and what they know is good for the country is different.


BJP was the first to propose and get in FDI, so they can hardly complain. They need a stick to beat the ruling party and so they use any pretext.


The same thing could be said for Congress when they were pulling off these antics when BJP was in power. So yours is a non starter.





The opposition tends to disrupt all Parliamentary work and ensures that no legislation happens, to further their own politican ends.
The ruling party has used the greed and legal tangles of the regional parties to push through much needed legislation.

The opposition is an important part in the checks and balances of a democracy, but our opposition behaves like a spoilt brat.

.

Oh really, so nice of you to remember the activities of Congress back during the years of 2000 to 2004. :rolleyes:

Tronic
11 Dec 12,, 01:16
The same thing could be said for Congress when they were pulling off these antics when BJP was in power. So yours is a non starter.


Oh really, so nice of you to remember the activities of Congress back during the years of 2000 to 2004. :rolleyes:


I would say that this point is just in addition to what LT has said. It doesn't really change his point. Our opposition, whichever party that may be at the time, BJP or Congress, acts the same.

Vinod2070
11 Dec 12,, 17:07
Which was a response to arguments trying to paint the Pakistani security failure in locating OBL prior to the Abbottabad raid as something 'unique' that was somehow 'evidence of Pakistani institutional complicity in sheltering OBL'. I merely pointed out that the US, with far greater economic and technological resources, and far better domestic law enforcement and political institutions, suffered from similar 'security and intelligence failures' as Pakistan, and a whole industry of conspiracy theories about the involvement of the CIA and/or Mossad in the 9/11 attacks has come about because of conspiracy theories and speculation.

OK. Though obviously the doubt is much more about the intention than the actual failure in locating him. Here is a video of a NSA to four presidents expressing his "opinions".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOTF6_v0-iA

But of course, nothing new for me to say here than you have been discussing already.


What were the signals suggesting Nidal would commit a terrorist attack and why were they ignored? On the latter, I would like to know the official version of events from the investigations into Nidal rather than your opinions that 'political correctness and pressure from institutions like CAIR' were the reason those signals were missed/ignored.

OK, I will just share a few links but there are many more on the web. I thought this has become common knowledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge_(logic)) by now.

So I guess it's a bit more than just my opinion.

Experts: Warnings ignored in Hood shootings - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/09/military-fort-hood-warnings-ignored-nidal-hasan-091412w)


The Army promoted Hassan despite reports from his colleagues that he made repeated comments sympathizing with Islamic extremists in general and Osama bin Laden in particular.
Some troops may have been reluctant to express concern about Hassan’s remarks for fear of being accused of having a bias against Muslims, said Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C.


“Service men and women are discouraged from pointing out things that they see … that should raise red flags,” Duncan said “They are scared they will be labeled an Islamophobe.”


Duncan said he does not understand why some officials labeled Hasan’s shooting an incident of workplace violence rather than terrorism.


Hasan is accused of using two handguns and shouting “Allahu Akbar” as he shot 13 people at Fort Hood on Nov. 5, 2009. He is facing a court-martial that could result in the death penalty.



Nidal Hasan Exactly the Man Many Knew Him to Be | World of Psychology (http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/02/03/nidal-hasan-exactly-the-man-many-knew-him-to-be/)


Army Maj. Nidal Hasan was exactly the kind of man many people knew him to be. And that’s why they continually promoted him and sent him some place else. Because nobody, apparently, was willing to intervene despite many warning signs about his behavior.

Those are the findings from the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. They found that the massacre allegedly carried out by Nidal Hasan could have have been prevented.

Had just one person acted on the information many different people had, the tragedy that occurred at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009 may have been prevented.


“The officers who kept Hasan in the military and moved him steadily along knew full well of his problematic behavior,” the report found. “As the officer who assigned Hasan to Fort Hood (and later decided to deploy Hasan to Afghanistan) admitted to an officer at Fort Hood, ‘you’re getting our worst.’ “

Even the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) knew about Hasan, because he came to their attention due to his constant emailing back and forth with radical Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. But did the FBI tell the Army? Apparently not:


The FBI conducted an “all too cursory” investigation into Hasan’s activities and left unresolved a disputed assessment between Joint Terrorism Task Forces in San Diego and in Washington, D.C., over the potential threat that he may have posed. The report found repeated delays in the FBI inquiry into Hasan that ended when an analyst mistakenly relied on Hasan’s “sanitized officer evaluation reports” to concluded that he posed no danger.



Turns out Ft. Hood mass-murderer Major Nidal Hasan showed a few warning signs | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/04/turns-major-nidal-hasan-showed-warning-signs-killed-people/)



A Senate report on the Fort Hood shooting is sharply critical of the FBI’s failure to recognize warning signs that an Army psychiatrist had become an Islamist extremist and amounted to a “ticking time bomb.”

The report concluded that both the Defense Department and the FBI had sufficient information to detect that Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had been radicalized to violent extremism, but they failed to understand and act on it. It said the FBI’s top leaders must exercise more control over local field offices and put to better use the intelligence analysts who should have been able to connect the dots.


Hasan advanced to a two-year fellowship at USUHS [Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences]…Less than a month into the fellowship, in August 2007, Hasan gave another off-topic presentation on a violent Islamist extremist subject instead of on a health care subject. This time, Hasan’s presentation was so controversial that the instructor had to stop it after just two minutes when the class erupted in protest to Hasan’s views. The presentation was entitled, Is the War on Terror a War on Islam: An Islamic Perspective? Hasan’s proposal for this presentation promoted this troubling thesis: that U.S. military operations are a war against lslam rather than based on non-religious security considerations. Hasan’s presentation accorded with the narrative of violent Islamist extremism that the West is at war with Islam. Hasan’s paper was full of empathetic and supportive recitation of other violent Islamist extremist views, including defense of Osama bin Laden, slanted historical accounts blaming the United States for problems in the Middle East, and arguments that anger at the United States is justifiable…The instructor who stopped the presentation said that Hasan was sweating, quite nervous, and agitated after being confronted by the class.

Agnostic Muslim
20 Dec 12,, 21:19
OK. Though obviously the doubt is much more about the intention than the actual failure in locating him. Here is a video of a NSA to four presidents expressing his "opinions".


But of course, nothing new for me to say here than you have been discussing already.
Correct, completely unsubstantiated opinions by the 'NSA to four presidents', refuted by the official investigation account as pointed out in the OP of this thread and my subsequent posts.




OK, I will just share a few links but there are many more on the web. I thought this has become common knowledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge_(logic)) by now.

So I guess it's a bit more than just my opinion.

Experts: Warnings ignored in Hood shootings - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/09/military-fort-hood-warnings-ignored-nidal-hasan-091412w)
The material in that link at least does not provide the Army's explanation on why Nidal was not interviewed and why he was promoted despite the concerns about him. The excerpt in there that does specifically mention 'political correctness' as a possible cause for Nadal's promotion is in fact yet another 'opinion' - that of Rep. Duncan

Nidal Hasan Exactly the Man Many Knew Him to Be | World of Psychology (http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/02/03/nidal-hasan-exactly-the-man-many-knew-him-to-be/)
While a case can certainly be made against promoting Nidal given his erratic behavior and performance reviews, I am not convinced the same evidence (poor performance and erratic behavior) could be used to dismiss Nidal from the military, in which case he would have probably carried out his attack somewhere else.

What does appear to be a huge oversight on the part of investigators is Nidal's communication with Awlaki, which should have resulted in him being placed under surveillance. Why the Army played a role in the investigation being prematurely ended, through providing a 'sanitized report', is something for the US Army to explain.

The investigation into Nidal and his actions leading up to his shooting spree point more towards institutional incompetence than political correctness. The man was communicating with a known terrorist leader and he was expressing support for violent acts - I am not sure how those two 'flags' could be ignored, and you certainly won't find me arguing in favor of ignoring such 'red flags'.

That said, if you want to argue that Muslim personnel in the US military that merely oppose US foreign policy as a matter of principle (and don't communicate with terrorists or support acts of violence against innocents) should be 'flagged', then your position would be problematic to say the least, and arguing against it would not be an example of 'political correctness'.

Vinod2070
21 Dec 12,, 15:20
Correct, completely unsubstantiated opinions by the 'NSA to four presidents', refuted by the official investigation account as pointed out in the OP of this thread and my subsequent posts.

Not really.

You can be sure your NSA must have had tonnes of facts to make the assessment he did. Privy as he must have been to a lot that you and me are not.

Including the fact that the missile attacks on AQ camps in 1998 had killed many ISI agents and PA men.

And that OBL escaped because he was suspected of having been informed by Pakistanis.

And that many PA men were airlifted from Afghanistan after 2001 US attacks. And thousands of Pakistanis were killed by Dostum's men. Many were packed in containers.

Actually even you and me know of these two and many more. He must know much more.


The material in that link at least does not provide the Army's explanation on why Nidal was not interviewed and why he was promoted despite the concerns about him. The excerpt in there that does specifically mention 'political correctness' as a possible cause for Nadal's promotion is in fact yet another 'opinion' - that of Rep. Duncan

While a case can certainly be made against promoting Nidal given his erratic behavior and performance reviews, I am not convinced the same evidence (poor performance and erratic behavior) could be used to dismiss Nidal from the military, in which case he would have probably carried out his attack somewhere else.

What does appear to be a huge oversight on the part of investigators is Nidal's communication with Awlaki, which should have resulted in him being placed under surveillance. Why the Army played a role in the investigation being prematurely ended, through providing a 'sanitized report', is something for the US Army to explain.

The investigation into Nidal and his actions leading up to his shooting spree point more towards institutional incompetence than political correctness. The man was communicating with a known terrorist leader and he was expressing support for violent acts - I am not sure how those two 'flags' could be ignored, and you certainly won't find me arguing in favor of ignoring such 'red flags'.

That said, if you want to argue that Muslim personnel in the US military that merely oppose US foreign policy as a matter of principle (and don't communicate with terrorists or support acts of violence against innocents) should be 'flagged', then your position would be problematic to say the least, and arguing against it would not be an example of 'political correctness'.

Google is your friend and there is a lot of info out there.

You just have to look.

Anyway, your country does seem to have a lot of contingency plans, both domestic and international, to deal with exigencies. Some of them seem a bit extreme to us from the subcontinent, like the supposed internment plans and what Colonel Dooley taught at your military academies and what apparently is still your country's policy.

But then you are living in the only Superpower and we are not able to even put a firm end to the incessant and vile terror coming from our ever obsessed neighbor. There has to be a catch somewhere.

Agnostic Muslim
22 Dec 12,, 01:11
Not really.

You can be sure your NSA must have had tonnes of facts to make the assessment he did. Privy as he must have been to a lot that you and me are not.
I am sure the official investigation into the OBL compound and the material obtained from there had significantly more facts and evidence available to them that we are not privy to, and yet that same investigation concluded that Pakistani institutions were not aware of OBL's compound, as is stated in the OP and pointed out in subsequent posts.


Including the fact that the missile attacks on AQ camps in 1998 had killed many ISI agents and PA men.
Credible evidence indicating ISI and PA personnel were killed in those attacks?

And that OBL escaped because he was suspected of having been informed by Pakistanis.
Right, and yet you claimed above that Pakistani intelligence and military personnel chose to remain to be killed at the same camps. You are contradicting yourself while constructing/regurgitating these nonsensical claims.

And that many PA men were airlifted from Afghanistan after 2001 US attacks.

Given that Pakistan's support for the Taliban was no secret, I am not sure why you would be surprised that Pakistan would evacuate any of its military/intelligence personnel that had not been able to leave prior to the invasion. That particular airlift was in fact approved by the US.


Google is your friend and there is a lot of info out there.

You just have to look.
I have looked, and I have found nothing to support your position. I am not going to spend hours 'googling' the veracity of your claims - since you are the one making them, I assume you already have the necessary facts/links to substantiate your claims and can easily post those links. If you choose not to, I can only assume that your claims do not have any credible facts supporting them.


Anyway, your country does seem to have a lot of contingency plans, both domestic and international, to deal with exigencies. Some of them seem a bit extreme to us from the subcontinent, like the supposed internment plans and what Colonel Dooley taught at your military academies and what apparently is still your country's policy.
Dooley is an extremist, and IMO should be classified in the same category as Nidal should have been put in (prior to his shooting rampage). I and almost all the other Americans I know do not support any 'internment plan' and will continue to oppose current US foreign policy in the Middle East and South Asia, along with illegal US military tactics such as drone strikes.


But then you are living in the only Superpower and we are not able to even put a firm end to the incessant and vile terror coming from our ever obsessed neighbor. There has to be a catch somewhere.
The catch is in your refusal to let go of your anti-Pakistan and anti-Muslim hatred and prejudice, and your refusal to stop distorting history and facts to demonize the aforementioned entities.

Vinod2070
22 Dec 12,, 05:06
I am sure the official investigation into the OBL compound and the material obtained from there had significantly more facts and evidence available to them that we are not privy to, and yet that same investigation concluded that Pakistani institutions were not aware of OBL's compound, as is stated in the OP and pointed out in subsequent posts.

Lack of smoking gun evidence doesn't necessarily mean absence of guilt.

It is likely also the need for Pakistan's help for the 2014 pullout as well as the famous "bullying from weakness" or "threatening with a trigger to one's own head" as many Americans put it, that may be working.

But I guess we have both had our say on this issue.


Credible evidence indicating ISI and PA personnel were killed in those attacks?

Sure.


The Cruise missiles the Clinton Administration fired at bin Laden’s camp in Eastern Afghanistan in 1998, after attacks on US embassies in Africa, killed several militants — and the team of ISI agents training them.

Is Pakistan helping Haqqanis attack US in Afghanistan? – The Express Tribune (http://tribune.com.pk/story/258767/is-pakistan-helping-haqqanis-attack-us-in-afghanistan/)

There are many more. Just two of them here. Again google is your friend.


In 1998, the Clinton administration launched cruise missiles at jihadist training camps in Afghanistan in retaliation for al-Qaeda’s bombing of two American embassies in East Africa. The missiles missed Osama bin Laden but killed a team of ISI agents training militants at the camps.

Taliban - Topics - Macleans.ca (http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/taliban/)


Right, and yet you claimed above that Pakistani intelligence and military personnel chose to remain to be killed at the same camps. You are contradicting yourself while constructing/regurgitating these nonsensical claims.

Well, I agree there is a bit of contradiction but there is a bigger contraction in Pakistan being a victim of terror and still never letting go of it as a weapon of choice for others.

I will also suggest the book "Engaging India" by Strobe Talbot. A full read will be good but you may just choose to browse page 116 and see the factual account.


Given that Pakistan's support for the Taliban was no secret, I am not sure why you would be surprised that Pakistan would evacuate any of its military/intelligence personnel that had not been able to leave prior to the invasion. That particular airlift was in fact approved by the US.

Taliban and AQ were hands in glove at the time. OBL was among those favored and used even in domestic issues by Musharraf. This link should help.

Talibanization of the heart | Pak Tea House (http://pakteahouse.net/2010/08/25/talibanization-of-the-heart/)


You can go a few more years earlier in 1984 when General Zia sent his notorious lashkar led and supervised by no other than Brigadier Musharraf aka General Musharraf, the enlightened, the moderate. This proto-Talibanic lashkar not just burnt alive hundreds of the Shias of Gilgit, it burnt alive the animals too owned by the Shias. Of course, this can be justified because those animals were not human, Muslim, or Pakistani.

OBL was supposedly a part of this "proto-Talibanic lashkar".


I have looked, and I have found nothing to support your position. I am not going to spend hours 'googling' the veracity of your claims - since you are the one making them, I assume you already have the necessary facts/links to substantiate your claims and can easily post those links. If you choose not to, I can only assume that your claims do not have any credible facts supporting them.

Well, from my perspective, you can only take the horse to the water and no further.


Dooley is an extremist, and IMO should be classified in the same category as Nidal should have been put in (prior to his shooting rampage). I and almost all the other Americans I know do not support any 'internment plan' and will continue to oppose current US foreign policy in the Middle East and South Asia, along with illegal US military tactics such as drone strikes.

Even we don't support all American policies in South Asia. Those policies are made by Americans for promoting American interests and we feel they have been responsible for propping up an irresponsible state, allowing it continue it's unsustainable posture as they "know" they will be saved from themselves by its benefactors, chiefly America.

We feel those policies have resulted in much pain and many deaths in the region. They have continued for decades and are still continuing. Of course, we in the region have to share a large part of the blame as well for allowing this o happen.


The catch is in your refusal to let go of your anti-Pakistan and anti-Muslim hatred and prejudice, and your refusal to stop distorting history and facts to demonize the aforementioned entities.

That is a lazy way to look at it. I just want the terror coming in to stop. Rest, I am ok with any kind of relations from cold wary peace to the best neighborly relations in a few decades time. I have nothing against the ordinary people who are themselves suffering because of the country having become a "salaamati riyasat" (security state) but the last thing they have is "salaamati".