Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US Assessment - Pakistan unaware of Laden's Location

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Tronic View Post
    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.
    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

    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

    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?
    Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
    https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

    Comment


    • #32
      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.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
        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.
        Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
        https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

        Comment


        • #34
          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.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
            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.
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Chogy View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                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

                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
                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.
                Last edited by Tronic; 20 Nov 12,, 03:34.
                Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
                -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                  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!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    And then in another thread the Col says his memory is bad.
                    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        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.
                        No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                        To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                            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?

                            But I understand if you lot have no stomach for real discussion ...
                            Indeed.
                            sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Minskaya View Post
                              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.
                              Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                              https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Chogy View Post
                                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.
                                Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                                https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X