Afghanistan 'had Abbottabad lead four years ago'

[ambidex]

As an Indian, there really isn't any room for you to criticize Pakistan on that front, given the fact that India did just that in Junagadh, Baluchistan and East Pakistan and Indian support for the LTTE in Sri Lanka. The US did much the same with its own interventions via proxies in Latin America and Asia.

In any case, I am unaware of any current Pakistani policy that fits your allegations here.

India is not ally of Pakistan but Pakistan is of USA. Isn't it?

Pakistan is India's enemy. Whatever Pakistan did against India vise a verse was sorted out at the borders.

As far as Junagadh is concerned then its out of topic...I would say nauseating rant.

Baluchistan - Give us the bloody proff.

Bangladesh - Punjabi racism wouldn't let a Bangladeshi to become PM. ...Rings bell?

LTTE- Only Pakistanis are complaining. No words from SL. Fail?

[S2]

A.M. Reply

"Aimed Mukhtar contradicts himself in the same statement on the Quest Shura. You know as well as I do that the first part of his statement was in the context of threats to Pakistan, as he clearly states, which meant he was likely referring to the TTP and got the terms mixed up."

I fully disagree. You're welcome to your view but it contradicts the understanding of the NATION's editors and virtually any reasoned-thinking soul. That you presume to know better than Mukhtar, the NATION's editors and everybody else who read his comments regarding the QUETTA SHURA is astounding but you've long-transitioned to an unabashed mouthpiece for the P.A. so I really shouldn't be surprised.

"As for [S]Anger and his claims, he is yet another US establishment pig, whose career is largely owed to his 'contacts' within the establishment, and his willingness to parrot and propagate their propaganda to influence public opinion with respect to foreign policy..."

Ad hominem attack. Truly with you the pot calling the kettle black. In any case Sanger's responsibility as White House correspondent spans multiple administrations as well as domestic policy. The NYT's staff is among the world's best IMV. Thoughout this war the reporting of those such as Sanger, Filkins, Alyssa and Elizabeth Rubin, Perlez, Eric Schmitt and C.J. Shivers has been outstanding.

"...I am asking for the intercept to establish its veracity, and for the PA to be able to do so. Without the actual intercept, Sanger has said nothing verifiable..."

The U.S. isn't going to provide you with our intercepts. You're completely devoid of the requisite technical skill necessary to render judgement. Personally, I don't need your evaluation of its veracity. I accept the high liklihood of this story related by Sanger. Others here will determine if they also do. I've simply wished to prove my conclusions WRT Pakistani/Afghan taliban collusion aren't dependant upon Afghan intelligence sources.

Opposed or supporting the Pakistani army, most Pakistanis that I've read seem to agree with my view. It's simply a question as to whether they also agree with the policy of promoting proxy armies. America has done so in the past. We've used anti-Castro forces, Contras, Muslim mujahideen, and Montagnard warriors in our battles against global communism. It beat direct intervention and avoided total nuclear calamity.

Your attempt at equivocation, however, has a small fly in the ointment. Your proxy war is directed at the GoA, U.N./ISAF, and ourselves. Times (and targets) have changed. That should be clear. Pakistan no longer enjoys the world's support in such. The U.N. Security Council Committee on Counter-Terrorism's judgement of the Haqqani family is clear indication.

Pakistan is alone.

[Blademaster]

As an Indian, there really isn't any room for you to criticize Pakistan on that front, given the fact that India did just that in Junagadh, Baluchistan and East Pakistan and Indian support for the LTTE in Sri Lanka. The US did much the same with its own interventions via proxies in Latin America and Asia.

In any case, I am unaware of any current Pakistani policy that fits your allegations here.

Deflecting at best. I am sure that the 6 million dead Bangladeshis have something to say about that and the ethnic cleansing that is going in in Baluchistan.

[notorious_eagle]

Deflecting at best. I am sure that the 6 million dead Bangladeshis have something to say about that and the ethnic cleansing that is going in in Baluchistan.

- 6 million Bengalis :D lol, where did you get that number.
- Ethnic cleansing in Balochistan :D, i guess that is why Baloch youth are rushing to join the FC and Pakistan Army. I am an ethnic Baloch myself, stop spreading your BS propaganda. Baloch are proud Pakistanis and will give their life for the nation. Anyways, your going off topic.

[Agnostic Muslim]

India is not ally of Pakistan but Pakistan is of USA. Isn't it?

Pakistan is India's enemy. Whatever Pakistan did against India vise a verse was sorted out at the borders.

As far as Junagadh is concerned then its out of topic...I would say nauseating rant.

Baluchistan - Give us the bloody proff.

Bangladesh - Punjabi racism wouldn't let a Bangladeshi to become PM. ...Rings bell?

LTTE- Only Pakistanis are complaining. No words from SL. Fail?

Nothing but excuse above.

Junagadh: Indian supported rebels/terrorists against a government that had legally acceded to Pakistan, and then chose to militarily invade and annex the territory. Those are the facts.

East Pakistan: India supported terrorists/rebels in East Pakistan that led to the situation exacerbating and India did this long before '10 million refugees' entered India. I provided the evidence for this in a previous thread on WAB, from an Indian source that clearly established the date that India started covertly intervening in East Pakistan. Pakistan's domestic politics is none of India's business.

Baluchistan: You can have the same 'proof' that you lot claim to have indicating Pakistani institutional complicity in hiding OBL and perpetrating the Mumbai attacks.

LTTE: Surely you are not contesting Indian support for the LTTE, it is an established fact.

[Agnostic Muslim]

- 6 million Bengalis :D lol, where did you get that number.

Unsubstantiated nonsense on the part of various 'analysts', based on rumors, hearsay and biased reports from a newly independent Bangladesh looking to cement sentiment against Pakistan.

Bipartisan groups and commissions have, unofficially, come to the conclusions that numbers of dead were more along the lines of a couple hundred thousand or so, on both sides, with the East Pakistani rebels also carrying out massacres and atrocities in equal part to those killed by the PA.

The 'genocide' claim is the only excuse the Indians and their apologists in the West can hide behind when reminded of India's role in supporting terrorists that carried out ethnic cleansing against West Pakistanis and Biharis in East Pakistan. Of course the timeline of Indian support does not justify the 'stepped in to stop genocide and mass migration' excuse.

[Agnostic Muslim]

"Aimed Mukhtar contradicts himself in the same statement on the Quest Shura. You know as well as I do that the first part of his statement was in the context of threats to Pakistan, as he clearly states, which meant he was likely referring to the TTP and got the terms mixed up."

I fully disagree. You're welcome to your view but it contradicts the understanding of the NATION's editors and virtually any reasoned-thinking soul. That you presume to know better than Mukhtar, the NATION's editors and everybody else who read his comments regarding the QUETTA SHURA is astounding but you've long-transitioned to an unabashed mouthpiece for the P.A. so I really shouldn't be surprised.

I do not have to read the comments of the nation's editors to see the glaring contradiction in Mukhtar's comments within a few sentences. The fact is that the media hooked on to the first sentence because of the words 'Quetta Shura', despite the fact that he mentioned it in the context of militants threatening Pakistan (which would be the TTP). He very specifically denied 'foreign claims' which would refer to the Western claims of Quetta Shura.

"As for [S]Anger and his claims, he is yet another US establishment pig, whose career is largely owed to his 'contacts' within the establishment, and his willingness to parrot and propagate their propaganda to influence public opinion with respect to foreign policy..."

Ad hominem attack. Truly with you the pot calling the kettle black. In any case Sanger's responsibility as White House correspondent spans multiple administrations as well as domestic policy. The NYT's staff is among the world's best IMV. Thoughout this war the reporting of those such as Sanger, Filkins, Alyssa and Elizabeth Rubin, Perlez, Eric Schmitt and C.J. Shivers has been outstanding.

I respect the coverage of many of these journalists as it relates to reporting from the front lines on events they witness. However, Sanger's piece that you posted, and much of his other commentary on nuclear and intelligence issues, has nothing to do with reporting from the front lines - it is typically a regurgitation of whatever propaganda his sources in the US establishment feed him. The piece that you posted is one such example - there is nothing in there that can be substantiated. If talk of this intercept and its contents is so freely available to journalists and the media, then where is the intercept?

"...I am asking for the intercept to establish its veracity, and for the PA to be able to do so. Without the actual intercept, Sanger has said nothing verifiable..."

The U.S. isn't going to provide you with our intercepts. You're completely devoid of the requisite technical skill necessary to render judgement. Personally, I don't need your evaluation of its veracity. I accept the high liklihood of this story related by Sanger. Others here will determine if they also do. I've simply wished to prove my conclusions WRT Pakistani/Afghan taliban collusion aren't dependant upon Afghan intelligence sources.

Why hasn't the intercept been made public then to support these allegations that are so freely distributed to the media to malign Pakistan? And it really isn't that difficult to analyze an audio sample and determine certain characteristics about it and whether it is authentic or not.

Opposed or supporting the Pakistani army, most Pakistanis that I've read seem to agree with my view. It's simply a question as to whether they also agree with the policy of promoting proxy armies. America has done so in the past. We've used anti-Castro forces, Contras, Muslim mujahideen, and Montagnard warriors in our battles against global communism. It beat direct intervention and avoided total nuclear calamity.

Public opinion from Pakistan does not support your view, regardless of which Pakistanis you have read or interacted with.

Your attempt at equivocation, however, has a small fly in the ointment. Your proxy war is directed at the GoA, U.N./ISAF, and ourselves. Times (and targets) have changed. That should be clear. Pakistan no longer enjoys the world's support in such. The U.N. Security Council Committee on Counter-Terrorism's judgement of the Haqqani family is clear indication.

Pakistan is alone.

The equivocation of the actual policies by the US and Pakistan to support proxies in search of securing national interests is clear. The 'fly in the ointment' that you refer to is useless in terms of the legal/moral/ethical analogy of utilizing such methods.

[Yusuf]

Yeah there was no genocide by pakistan in Bangladesh just like there was no Osama in Pakistan.

[notorious_eagle]

Yeah there was no genocide by pakistan in Bangladesh just like there was no Osama in Pakistan.

Apples and Oranges, no proof to support that there was genocide by Pakistan in Bangladesh. We are going way off topic, i dont think the Mods are going to appreciate it. Lets start another thread regarding the accusations of genocide in Bangladesh.

[Yusuf]

Perfectly on topic. General trend in Pakistan to live in denial. Your duplicity, your lies, your treachery all lie exposed.

The best I heard from a Pakistani was that mumbai was handiwork of Somali pirates!!!

So continue denying everything and take solace.

[S2]

A.M. Reply

"I do not have to read the comments of the nation's editors to see the glaring contradiction in Mukhtar's comments..."

We disagree. NATION is a respected nat'l newpaper. It's hardly my favorite. Still, even they see Mukhtar's comments clearly.

Sanger's piece that you posted, and much of his other commentary on nuclear and intelligence issues... is typically a regurgitation of whatever propaganda his sources in the US establishment feed him."

His sources are hardly "establishment approved" and unquestionably far closer to the facts than you.

"...If talk of this intercept and its contents is so freely available to journalists and the media, then where is the intercept?..."

Nice. Ways and means are protected. You should understand that by now. If beyond your grasp then there's little else which needs saying. NYT magazine editors will question Sanger. They've a reputation that needs protecting. They are satisfied. The White House demanded no retraction. Of course you understand this but avoid its implications to your baseless allegations.

Sanger's thoughts are quite likely on the mark.

The rest of your diatribe concernig David Sanger is an ad hominem attack. Nothing less. His reputation will comfortably stand your assault.;)

"Public opinion from Pakistan does not support your view..."

Maybe. I would argue that most Pakistanis believe the afghan taliban leadership and Haqqani are on your lands. Whether those citizens also endorse or reject the use of proxy forces is somewhat less certain to me though only slightly so.

"The equivocation of the actual policies by the US and Pakistan to support proxies in search of securing national interests is clear. The 'fly in the ointment' that you refer to is useless in terms of the legal/moral/ethical analogy of utilizing such methods."

The U.N.'s identification of Haqqani in Pakistan and of threat to their interests in Afghanistan is salient from all three perspectives. You're completely wrong.

[Agnostic Muslim]

Perfectly on topic. General trend in Pakistan to live in denial. Your duplicity, your lies, your treachery all lie exposed.

The best I heard from a Pakistani was that mumbai was handiwork of Somali pirates!!!

So continue denying everything and take solace.

Instead of simply regurgitating lame rhetoric of 'denial, denial, denial' how about trying to actually refute the arguments made?

[Yusuf]

Instead of simply regurgitating lame rhetoric of 'denial, denial, denial' how about trying to actually refute the arguments made?

What's the use. It will be met with a denial. No kne believes Pakistan, more so now. All your stories are fabricated.

[Yusuf]

General Musharraf had years ago completely denied the existence of OBL in Pakistan and said he may be in Astan or elsewhere but not in Pak. It was on CNN I think.
After the liquidation of OBL, CNN caught up with him asked him what he thought of it now since he had denied it so forcefully eaier, he said he never said OBL is NOT in Pakistan. He then claimed that he had said he could be or could not be in Pakistan and that he had no knowledge of it. Osama moved into the safe house during his time.

[Agnostic Muslim]

General Musharraf had years ago completely denied the existence of OBL in Pakistan and said he may be in Astan or elsewhere but not in Pak. It was on CNN I think.
After the liquidation of OBL, CNN caught up with him asked him what he thought of it now since he had denied it so forcefully eaier, he said he never said OBL is NOT in Pakistan. He then claimed that he had said he could be or could not be in Pakistan and that he had no knowledge of it. Osama moved into the safe house during his time.

What exactly is this supposed to mean? If he had no idea where OBL was, what would you expect him to say? When he had no idea where OBL was, why would he say that he might be in Pakistan? Pakistan was getting plenty of negative press in any case, why support the idea of OBL being in Pakistan when no one knew where he was? As the leader of the country, it is his job to project the country in a positive light, especially when he has no evidence to the contrary of the position he is pushing.