Page 60 of 60 FirstFirst ... 51525354555657585960
Results 886 to 892 of 892

Thread: Osama Bin Laden is dead and his corpse is in US hands.

  1. #886
    Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Sep 08
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    The 'complicity' argument, with barely any legs to stand on to begin with, is pretty much dead IMO.
    Other opinions will disagree.

  2. #887
    Contributor 1980s's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Jul 08
    Posts
    697
    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    Salman Bashir, Pakistan's foreign minister, said "there shall no be any doubt that any repetition of such an act will have disastrous consequences", referring to the raid on Monday that killed Osama bin Laden, the head of al-Qaeda.

    "We feel that that sort of misadventure or miscalculation would result in a terrible catastrophe," he said on Thursday in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital.

    "There should be no doubt Pakistan has adequate capacity to ensure its own defence."
    Was that supposed to be some kind of joke? I think it was. They have no control over FATA, do they? Or is the Taliban rule there not an infringement of "Pakistani sovereignty" but done in collusion with Pakistan's meddlesome pro-terrorism policy? Its either one or the other.

    You know, these Pakistani statements have become so routine and predictable… 'Oh sure we're capable of defending our sovereignty, just not in FATA and North Waziristan in particular unless you pay as billions of dollars so that we have the required fee we need to be paid before we try to defend our pathetic selves… but then only on our own timetable, which isnt now…'. What a corrupt hell-hole.

  3. #888
    Contributor 1980s's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Jul 08
    Posts
    697
    Quote Originally Posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    And arrested by Pakistani security forces BTW, as was Libbi and as was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

    And apparently Pakistan provided some critical intelligence leading to the capture of OBL as well.
    Yeah but WHY DO THEY ALL END UP IN PAKISTAN - That is what Julie asked you.

  4. #889
    Senior Contributor Agnostic Muslim's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Dec 07
    Location
    Michigan/Lahore
    Posts
    2,419
    Quote Originally Posted by 1980s View Post
    Yeah but WHY DO THEY ALL END UP IN PAKISTAN - That is what Julie asked you.
    Read my response to her then.
    Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
    https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

  5. #890
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    In case you haven't noticed, investment under the KLL is proceeding at a very slow pace, and the impact on public perception is pretty negligible at this point. In fact, the Pakistani Finance Minister pointed out, at a conference in the US a few weeks ago, that only around $300 million had been disbursed so far from KLL funds.So in terms of the impact of those funds currently, there is none, and if Congress does end the program, very little will be missed.

    WASHINGTON: US lawmakers are debating whether they should attach more strings to the billions of dollars in aid they give Pakistan, or cut Islamabad off after Osama bin Laden was found not far from the capital.

    Congress has approved $20 billion over the past decade for Pakistan, making it one of the biggest US aid recipients, with about half to reimburse Pakistan for help in fighting extremists.

    The latest installment of more than $2 billion in military aid was approved just three weeks ago as part of a budget deal to avert a U.S. government shutdown.

    Congress also provided for more civilian aid to Pakistan which could top $1 billion. Some lawmakers are demanding a halt to the aid now that al Qaeda leader bin Laden has been found and killed by US forces in a Pakistani military town, Abbottabad. But others say Washington still needs Pakistan as a partner to fight terrorism.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said this week Pakistan had lost many soldiers fighting extremism within its own borders, and suggested more controls should be put on the U.S. aid instead of dropping it entirely. “I hope we will have better oversight of the money that is being given to Pakistan,” Reid, a Democrat, told reporters.

    Legislation in 2009 boosting civilian aid to Pakistan set out conditions for military aid, including calling on Pakistan to combat terrorists on its territory. The United States has pressed Pakistan for years to get rid of militant sanctuaries on its side of the border with Afghanistan.

    There was also concern about the long-running ties between Pakistan’s military and the Afghan Taliban. Pakistan was furious about the conditions. Now some US lawmakers, including some who pushed to increase aid to Pakistan, question whether the conditions have been met.

    “The notion of a close and strong relationship with Pakistan in part is premised on their cooperation in our confrontation with terrorist groups. The record so far is very weak,” Representative Howard Berman, a co-sponsor of the 2009 aid bill, said this week.

    The military in Pakistan “is not serving the interests that we intended that military aid to serve,” Berman, a Democrat, told Reuters.

    “Even before the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden, I was getting more and more skeptical about what we are getting for our taxpayer money.”
    Certifying that Pakistan fights terrorists

    Under the conditions in the 2009 law, no security aid was to be given to Pakistan in 2011-2014 unless the US secretary of state made certain findings, including that Pakistan had “demonstrated a sustained commitment to and is making significant efforts towards combating terrorist groups.”

    Progress that Pakistan made on “preventing al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated terrorist groups …. from operating in the territory of Pakistan” was to be taken into account.

    The Obama administration made the necessary findings so that the 2011 aid could be approved, with its justifications classified, Berman said. But the administration has expressed ever more frustration with Pakistan, lately going public with it. Eleven days before bin Laden was killed, the top US military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, accused Pakistan’s intelligence agency of maintaining ties to militants targeting U.S. troops in neighboring Afghanistan.

    Mullen called for Pakistan to take a more assertive stand against the Haqqani network, a longtime insurgent faction allied with the Afghan Taliban. One US analyst expressed skepticism that new conditions on aid, should Congress develop them, would be more effective. “We and Pakistan are backing different horses in Afghanistan, so don’t expect Pakistan to heed U.S. legislative provisions regarding the Haqqani network,” said Michael Krepon, director of the south Asia program at the Stimson Center think tank.

    http://tribune.com.pk/story/162350/a...ht-terrorists/

    *I would have zero problem with them removing the aid. None what so ever. Very little will be missed you claim but your military thinks much differently and they need those funds. It all depends upon their performance which has been sub par thus far.

    And when these terrorists are followed back into Pakistan then we bomb them with or without Pakistans consent. Why? Because you will only make an excuse or some half baked effort to keep stability in the factions that also target your soft targets. They only get worse as time moves forward especially if you choose to ignore the fact they exist and what they do.

    Sitting on the fence wont make anything better in that country I assure you and thats exactly the way the government percieves it can maintain peace and stay in power...NO BALLS!

    As I pointed out, Pakistan needs a 'kick in the pants' in the form of an end to US aid and IMF loans to highlight the incompetence of the current political elite, or force them to implement reforms to cover the revenue shortfall. Pakistan has the economic base and resources to generate more than what it currently takes in annually from aid and loans. Just reforming/privatizing the largest public sector companies would save Pakistani taxpayers $3 billion annually - that is how much they lose every year and the taxpayer has to cover. Raising the taxpayer ratio even a little bit over the 8% it is currently would net significant revenues as well.

    Pakistan does not need aid, it needs reforms, and the view of many Pakistanis, including myself, is that US aid and loans are preventing those reforms by artificially keeping the country afloat and covering its revenue shortfalls.


    *That "aid" is also keeping Pakistans military afloat, otherwise we all know whats going to happen. It will no doubt become a terrorist led country and with no money to fight it it will stay that way and draw increasing attacks from countries who are attacked by terrorists living within those borders. Of that you can be sure.

    Don't base public opinion on what you read in the English language Pakistani papers - they represent a minority. IMF loans are extremely unpopular in Pakistan, and the loss of US aid will barely make a ripple when attached to rhetoric of 'we no longer owe the US anything and the US has limited influence over Pakistan'.

    You can say that all you want but you also know what will happen if it looses that aid. Do you honestly think that although a nuclear power that this will stave off countries from incursions on your soil to kill those that kill others across the borders. If you do then your only fooling yourself because it wont. It would take decades for Pakistan to stand on its own and repay that money and during that time even more terrorist organizations will flurish within your borders and if the ISI is not gutted then you could only hope things get better for the people. All the while the ISI is making deals.

    This is not mere bravado - this is a very serious and significant school of thought in Pakistan, that the current US-Pakistan relationship based on aid is unsustainable, transactional and counterproductive. IMO, the US has refused Pakistani requests since 2001 for greater trade access, civilian nuclear cooperation and any tangible strategic cooperation or relationship precisely because it wants Pakistan dependent upon US aid and IMF loans in order to retain influence over the country.

    Why would we want to improve things for you when your governemnt and ISI cannot be trusted and there are concrete reasons as to why. How do you think the taxpayers of the US would feel if they did and Bin Laden still had to be taken down in this fashion and their Troops and partners still being targeted by groups within your borders and cooperation with your officials. I can see why we say no, can you?]

    Despite all the rhetoric of 'long term strategic relationship' out of the political leadership of both sides, the fact is that there is nothing 'long term' or 'strategic' about the relationship - it is short term and transactional, based on the promise of aid in exchange for Counter terrorism cooperation.

    So you want something for nothing, irregardless to the fact that terroroists within your borders are left to breed, train and attack those outside your borders as well as those trying to rebuild war torn countries across your borders.

    Why do you just plain out say that we need your aid to breed and train those that train and support groups that will kill yours and other countries troops.

    In a nutshell thats exactly whats being said. It wouldnt matter one bit if the US pulled its aid, you would still allow these groups to exist because of a convienance and eyed towards Afghainstan. We are not the only ones to both say and know this.
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 05 May 11, at 16:31.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  6. #891
    Senior Contributor Agnostic Muslim's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Dec 07
    Location
    Michigan/Lahore
    Posts
    2,419
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnought View Post
    In case you haven't noticed, investment under the KLL is proceeding at a very slow pace, and the impact on public perception is pretty negligible at this point. In fact, the Pakistani Finance Minister pointed out, at a conference in the US a few weeks ago, that only around $300 million had been disbursed so far from KLL funds.So in terms of the impact of those funds currently, there is none, and if Congress does end the program, very little will be missed.

    WASHINGTON: US lawmakers are debating whether they should attach more strings to the billions of dollars in aid they give Pakistan, or cut Islamabad off after Osama bin Laden was found not far from the capital.

    Congress has approved $20 billion over the past decade for Pakistan, making it one of the biggest US aid recipients, with about half to reimburse Pakistan for help in fighting extremists.

    The latest installment of more than $2 billion in military aid was approved just three weeks ago as part of a budget deal to avert a U.S. government shutdown.

    Congress also provided for more civilian aid to Pakistan which could top $1 billion. Some lawmakers are demanding a halt to the aid now that al Qaeda leader bin Laden has been found and killed by US forces in a Pakistani military town, Abbottabad. But others say Washington still needs Pakistan as a partner to fight terrorism.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said this week Pakistan had lost many soldiers fighting extremism within its own borders, and suggested more controls should be put on the U.S. aid instead of dropping it entirely. “I hope we will have better oversight of the money that is being given to Pakistan,” Reid, a Democrat, told reporters.

    Legislation in 2009 boosting civilian aid to Pakistan set out conditions for military aid, including calling on Pakistan to combat terrorists on its territory. The United States has pressed Pakistan for years to get rid of militant sanctuaries on its side of the border with Afghanistan.

    There was also concern about the long-running ties between Pakistan’s military and the Afghan Taliban. Pakistan was furious about the conditions. Now some US lawmakers, including some who pushed to increase aid to Pakistan, question whether the conditions have been met.

    “The notion of a close and strong relationship with Pakistan in part is premised on their cooperation in our confrontation with terrorist groups. The record so far is very weak,” Representative Howard Berman, a co-sponsor of the 2009 aid bill, said this week.

    The military in Pakistan “is not serving the interests that we intended that military aid to serve,” Berman, a Democrat, told Reuters.

    “Even before the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden, I was getting more and more skeptical about what we are getting for our taxpayer money.”
    Certifying that Pakistan fights terrorists

    Under the conditions in the 2009 law, no security aid was to be given to Pakistan in 2011-2014 unless the US secretary of state made certain findings, including that Pakistan had “demonstrated a sustained commitment to and is making significant efforts towards combating terrorist groups.”

    Progress that Pakistan made on “preventing al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated terrorist groups …. from operating in the territory of Pakistan” was to be taken into account.

    The Obama administration made the necessary findings so that the 2011 aid could be approved, with its justifications classified, Berman said. But the administration has expressed ever more frustration with Pakistan, lately going public with it. Eleven days before bin Laden was killed, the top US military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, accused Pakistan’s intelligence agency of maintaining ties to militants targeting U.S. troops in neighboring Afghanistan.

    Mullen called for Pakistan to take a more assertive stand against the Haqqani network, a longtime insurgent faction allied with the Afghan Taliban. One US analyst expressed skepticism that new conditions on aid, should Congress develop them, would be more effective. “We and Pakistan are backing different horses in Afghanistan, so don’t expect Pakistan to heed U.S. legislative provisions regarding the Haqqani network,” said Michael Krepon, director of the south Asia program at the Stimson Center think tank.

    *I would have zero problem with them removing the aid. None what so ever. Very little will be missed you claim but your military thinks much differently and they need those funds. It all depends upon their performance which has been sub par thus far.

    As I pointed out, Pakistan needs a 'kick in the pants' in the form of an end to US aid and IMF loans to highlight the incompetence of the current political elite, or force them to implement reforms to cover the revenue shortfall. Pakistan has the economic base and resources to generate more than what it currently takes in annually from aid and loans. Just reforming/privatizing the largest public sector companies would save Pakistani taxpayers $3 billion annually - that is how much they lose every year and the taxpayer has to cover. Raising the taxpayer ratio even a little bit over the 8% it is currently would net significant revenues as well.

    Pakistan does not need aid, it needs reforms, and the view of many Pakistanis, including myself, is that US aid and loans are preventing those reforms by artificially keeping the country afloat and covering its revenue shortfalls.


    *That "aid" is also keeping Pakistans military afloat, otherwise we all know whats going to happen. It will no doubt become a terrorist led country and with no money to fight it it will stay that way and draw increasing attacks from countries who are attacked by terrorists living within those borders. Of that you can be sure.

    Don't base public opinion on what you read in the English language Pakistani papers - they represent a minority. IMF loans are extremely unpopular in Pakistan, and the loss of US aid will barely make a ripple when attached to rhetoric of 'we no longer owe the US anything and the US has limited influence over Pakistan'.

    You can say that all you want but you also know what will happen if it looses that aid. Do you honestly think that although a nuclear power that this will stave off countries from incursions on your soil to kill those that kill others across the borders. If you do then your only fooling yourself because it wont. It would take decades for Pakistan to stand on its own and repay that money and during that time even more terrorist organizations will flurish within your borders and if the ISI is not gutted then you could only hope things get better for the people. All the while the ISI is making deals.

    This is not mere bravado - this is a very serious and significant school of thought in Pakistan, that the current US-Pakistan relationship based on aid is unsustainable, transactional and counterproductive. IMO, the US has refused Pakistani requests since 2001 for greater trade access, civilian nuclear cooperation and any tangible strategic cooperation or relationship precisely because it wants Pakistan dependent upon US aid and IMF loans in order to retain influence over the country.

    Why would we want to improve things for you when your governemnt and ISI cannot be trusted and there are concrete reasons as to why. How do you think the taxpayers of the US would feel if they did and Bin Laden still had to be taken down in this fashion and their Troops and partners still being targeted by groups within your borders and cooperation with your officials. I can see why we say no, can you?]

    Despite all the rhetoric of 'long term strategic relationship' out of the political leadership of both sides, the fact is that there is nothing 'long term' or 'strategic' about the relationship - it is short term and transactional, based on the promise of aid in exchange for Counter terrorism cooperation.

    So you want something for nothing, irregardless to the fact that terroroists within your borders are left to breed, train and attack those outside your borders as well as those trying to rebuild war torn countries across your borders.

    Why do you just plain out say that we need your aid to breed and train those that train and support groups that will kill yours and other countries troops.

    In a nutshell thats exactly whats being said. It wouldnt matter one bit if the US pulled its aid, you would still allow these groups to exist becuase of a convienance.
    It won't take decades - we'll default if we have to and focus on the domestic economy. Foreign investment is extremely limited currently because of the WoT in any case, so poor credit ratings internationally will have a negligible impact, since the whole point is to move away from borrowing from international institutions where the US controls a large chunk of the vote.

    And as I pointed out, if Pakistan shuts down/privatizes at throwaway prices the largest PSE's (this year), it'll save over $3 billion dollars annually. Not to mention the tax revenue if the private sector runs those entities properly and turns a profit.

    That is more than enough to cover the annual shortfall from an end to US aid/reimbursements. Tax reforms will take longer, but with no alternatives to cover the revenue shortfall, the politicians will be forced to enact them to some degree.

    There will be some pain, but definitely worth it.
    Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
    https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

  7. #892
    Administrator Tarek Morgen's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Feb 07
    Location
    Kassel
    Posts
    4,417
    Since we are once more back to insults and name-calling this thread is locked for now. It will be reopened later under stronger supervision. Some of the latest post have been deleted (though not all post that violated the rules...simply because it would be quite a big task to go through the whole thread to find every post that violated forum rules).

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Where's Osama bin Laden?
    By Ironduke in forum Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 13 Sep 09,, 03:58
  2. U.S. may have killed Osama bin Laden's son
    By Mobbme in forum Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 25 Jul 09,, 16:17
  3. Is this possible? Osama Bin Laden found?
    By Kommunist in forum Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 27 Mar 09,, 18:12
  4. Osama bin Laden: A Man of Peace
    By Ray in forum International Economy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09 Sep 07,, 14:49
  5. Is Osama bin Laden dead?
    By Akshay in forum International Economy
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 25 Sep 06,, 18:48

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •