Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 287

Thread: Pakistan's Abbotabad Report

  1. #16
    Senior Contributor Agnostic Muslim's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Dec 07
    Location
    Michigan/Lahore
    Posts
    2,459
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Was the information not authentic, or did someone warn him to get gone fast? What we do know- attempts to use Pakistani forces to capture Bin Laden on multiple attempts= 0 success rate.
    Verifying whether the information provided by the US was 'authentic' or not should not be too hard since the times and locations of prior raids can be cross-referenced against the details about OBL's hideouts provided by OBL's family.
    It is highly suspicious that all joint ops fail and the single solo attempt by the US succeeds.
    The US also failed in Tora Bora, so hardly the 'single solo attempt' - other than that your argument is speculative at best.
    Further suspicion is aroused when that American team felt they needed air cover and protection from the Pakistani military their supposed allies and co-belligerents.
    The US was conducting an illegal and unauthorized military strike inside Pakistani territory - it would be completely reasonable to expect the Pakistani military to respond with force had it detected the intrusion. I see no point in your argument here.
    If you boil it all down and sift through all the misdirection- the authors were unable to clear Pakistan's name of being a state sponsor of terrorism- period full stop.
    Boil it, sift it, add in a generous dose of speculation, anti-Pakistan bias and paranoia and yes, you could arrive at the conclusions you have.
    Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
    https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

  2. #17
    In Memoriam Military Professional Minskaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Aug 12
    Location
    Belarus•Ukraine•Israel
    Posts
    3,608
    Quote Originally Posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    The actual quote from the report (which in my opinion impacts the context) differs from Minskaya's quote and is as follows:
    The quote infers what is known in the dichotomy of logic as a bipartition. The implication remains the same however. The ISI was less than forthright with the US in the FATA. Thus was planted the seeds of doubt. Empirical experience tells us that in a bipartition, what happens most of the time is not a guarantor of what will happen this time. Thus, Obama's decision to exclude Pakistan from Neptune's Spear.

  3. #18
    Contributor 1980s's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Jul 08
    Posts
    702
    Quote Originally Posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    Perhaps you can enlighten us as to who 'within the security establishment colluded with terrorists and sheltered OBL' since you some others wail about this particular allegation non-stop
    I dont need to because the Abbotobad report does not (and cannot) refute those allegations. It glosses them over, yet still concedes to the allegation that “Connivance, collaboration and cooperation at some levels cannot be entirely discounted,”. The people who wrote the report chose to play down those allegations and put the whole thing down to 10 years of 'incompetence', tho it looks like few people out there buy that excuse.

    For an army that was so extensively engaged in Afghanistan during the 1980s and especially during the 1990s which included aiding, advising and even fighting alongside the Taliban, the old Pakistani excuses of 'rogue elements' and now 'institutional incompetence' ring pretty hollow.

    Here is a summary of former ISI director Mahmood Ahmed's dealings with Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda operatives and affiliates as late as October 2001, the same month he was removed by Musharraf (due only to American pressure): Complete 911 Timeline: ISI Director Mahmood Ahmed and of Pakistan's airlift of some 5000 Taliban, Pakistani army personal, and foreign terrorists at Kunduz in November, 2001: Context of 'November 14-25, 2001: US Secretly Authorizes Airlift of Pakistani and Taliban Fighters'.

    The only incompetence here was of the Bush admin to trust the Pakistanis would ultimately be on their side.

  4. #19
    Liberté, Unité, Egalité Senior Contributor Tronic's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Dec 04
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3,997
    Quote Originally Posted by 1980s View Post
    So Bin Laden lives in Pakistan for 10 years, several in an unusually large compound near a military academy and nobody in the Pakistani security establisment knew in all that time?
    A certain shady figure, Major Aziz, testifies to the commission on page 76:

    Major Aziz also said, somewhat contradictorily, that "Abbottabad was an ideal place for OBL" as everything was available there. It was according to him a peaceful place and families of many terrorists lived there which according to Major Aziz ensured it against suicidal attacks since terrorists would not like to harm their own families. Moreover, the bodies of martyred militants, according to Major Aziz "were buried with great honour in Abbottabad".
    It sort of puts credence to the report carried out in the Globe and Mail that the Bin Laden compound was locally suspected to be a Hizbul Mujahideen (anti-Indian militants) safehouse:

    As suspicions grow about how Osama bin Laden spent years living next door to Pakistan's military, there are indications emerging that the terrorist mastermind was sheltered by one of the militant groups that has enjoyed tolerance, if not support, from Pakistani security services.

    A police officer familiar with Mr. bin Laden's compound in the scenic town of Abbottabad said the location was used by Hizbul Mujahedeen, one of the biggest militant outfits in the disputed territory of Kashmir. Like other groups fighting Indian troops in the borderlands, HM's radical membership has never been rounded up by Pakistani forces and some analysts say Islamabad covertly supports the group.
    Bin Laden given haven by militants linked to Pakistani security forces - The Globe and Mail
    The Pakistanis likely did not bother looking there as the "shady people" in town were their esteemed Mujahid guests. They probably didn't expect Osama to be paying a visit.
    Last edited by Tronic; 09 Jul 13, at 21:57.
    Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
    -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

  5. #20
    Global Moderator Defense Professional
    Join Date
    30 May 06
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    The references to 'American arrogance' are made in terms of describing US policies/demands/actions, and are not used to 'justify the behavior of your own people in the event and what they should/could/would have done ..'.
    it is used in his report as dialogue to support the intent and justification of pakistan being a victim. it has no relevance to analysing the peformance of the agencies and shops involved and identified as participants for the Pakistani Govt.
    Analysts politely refer to such commentary as "fluff"


    Quote Originally Posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post

    The perceptions about the US should in fact be a welcome addition in the report, for American analysts at least, because they might identify aspects of US policy that have limited cooperation with Pakistan and damaged the relationship, if of course the long term goal of the US government is to increase cooperation with Pakistan and improve the relationship.
    I've made no claim as to whether the US (at a proper analysts level as opposed to a well read journalist or political commentator etc....) sees it as a welcome addition.
    If you think that a throw away "hurt statement" from someone who has been unable to suspend their own defensive reaction and bias into what is supposed to be clinical navel gazing is needed for the US to have a deeper understanding of what ails the relationship, then you're injecting your own assumptions into this as well.

    The fact that the US even needed to isolate people on the PGov side shows how much they believe the PG is compromised from within. Thats basic tactical analysis and has zero do to with who might have hurt feelings, or what country to country attitudes are. The overall thrust of the report reinforces why the USG closely held the mechanics of this opn to their chest. All the self generated grief on the other side does not alter the fact that they couldn't control their own agencies, and that their agencies were incompetent (and I have significant difficulty accepting this as the Pakistanis are a good outfit with respect to their 2 shops - and having worked with PakMil in prev lives)

    ISI aren't amateurs - and if other agencies were operating in absentia of relevant material to do their own jobs, then thats a reinforcement (again) of what we know are vehicles of "shop" tribalism. "Tribes" in govt language refers to role based agencies or shops - not on cultural-heritage links
    Last edited by gf0012-aust; 09 Jul 13, at 23:01.

  6. #21
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,939
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    If you boil it all down and sift through all the misdirection- the authors were unable to clear Pakistan's name of being a state sponsor of terrorism- period full stop.
    I don't think that was the intent. The conclusion goes on about intelligence failures etc. And does not mention anybody stating that its obvious who 'anybody' is.

    The real point is nothing is going to happen to Pakistan as a result of this isn't it. Nobody is going to do anything. The report offers recommendations, there is nobody obligated to enforce anything the report recommends.

    Taliban got toppled and invaded because they would not hand him over. Admission & refusal to cooperate. What did the Paks do ? Deny he existed or said they did not know.

    When you found out he was alive & kicking in Pakistan. What did you do ? went in and got him yourself.

    The Paks are off the hook, whether we like it or not. You got the guy in the end so you've got something to show for the effort.

  7. #22
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    Verifying whether the information provided by the US was 'authentic' or not should not be too hard since the times and locations of prior raids can be cross-referenced against the details about OBL's hideouts provided by OBL's family.
    I agree

    The US also failed in Tora Bora, so hardly the 'single solo attempt' - other than that your argument is speculative at best.
    Not solo, relied on Afghans and more importantly Pakistanis to close the backdoor... Pakistan was suspiciously just a bit too slow on the closing...

    The US was conducting an illegal and unauthorized military strike inside Pakistani territory - it would be completely reasonable to expect the Pakistani military to respond with force had it detected the intrusion. I see no point in your argument here.
    Not illegal, not under customary international law or the laws of armed conflict. We are officially allies and co-belligerents, that gives us rights to conduct legitimate war aims where ever the war if officially being fought. For example were allied attacks on Holland and France in WWII illegal? You wont find a single international law regarding belligerents that says an ally can't conduct otherwise legitimate military operations on another allies territory.

    In addition, had the US previously stated that we would go after OBL where ever we found him without needing anyone's permission. Had Pakistan previously pledged and made public statements she was willing to do what ever it took to catch OBL? Obviously the answers are yes to both. It almost sounds like you're more upset that OBL got caught than in celebrating the fact he was caught.

    Boil it, sift it, add in a generous dose of speculation, anti-Pakistan bias and paranoia and yes, you could arrive at the conclusions you have.
    Lots and lots of evidence of Pakistan supporting terror and double dealing.

  8. #23
    Patron
    Join Date
    15 Jan 11
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Lots and lots of evidence of Pakistan supporting terror and double dealing.
    The question is, what does Pakistan gain from supporting terror and double dealing? Pointing a finger at someone far more easier than acknowledging one's own mistakes. I have a hard time believing Pakistan was sheltering OBL considering the fact that AQ is directly responsible for the death of thousands of innocent Pakistanis.

  9. #24
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    This is not a case of wink-wink turning a blind eye to terror safe havens. This is a deliberate case of turning of a full blind eye to terror safe havens, trusting the terrorists not to do anything against Pakistani interests. Guess what? You got burned. This report says it all. Pakistan trusted terrorists enough to give them safe havens and were surprised that those terrorists in turn gave safe haven to Al Qaeda and OBL - in Pakistan. Hell, in their shoes, I would too. OBL, desperate on the run, and I got a safe house in Pakistan, and he's offering millions? Guess what?

    In the final straw, Pakistan is responsible for OBL. There is no way around it. Yeah, those safe havens were not meant for AQ nor OBL but guess what? You trusted and gave aide to AQ and OBL allies and you were surprised that AQ and OBL took advantage of that?

    And we should trust you with our military secrets.

  10. #25
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Quote Originally Posted by notorious_eagle View Post
    The question is, what does Pakistan gain from supporting terror and double dealing? Pointing a finger at someone far more easier than acknowledging one's own mistakes.
    Continued military dominance of the civil society and the funding and perks that come with it.

    I have a hard time believing Pakistan was sheltering OBL considering the fact that AQ is directly responsible for the death of thousands of innocent Pakistanis.
    Doesn't really matter what you believe, its what the rest of the world believes. The evidence of Pakistani complicity in multiple terror attacks across the globe is what matters. Even the Chinese have gotten on to Pakistan for its support of terror.

  11. #26
    Global Moderator Defense Professional
    Join Date
    30 May 06
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,269
    Quote Originally Posted by notorious_eagle View Post
    The question is, what does Pakistan gain from supporting terror and double dealing? Pointing a finger at someone far more easier than acknowledging one's own mistakes. I have a hard time believing Pakistan was sheltering OBL considering the fact that AQ is directly responsible for the death of thousands of innocent Pakistanis.
    The issue you allude to is not about branding "all" pakistanis with sheltering OBL. Its about elements within Pakistani agencies who were either complicit by omission, or complicit by commission in not alerting other Pakistani agencies or the executive of the Pakistani govt as to what they knew of where OBL was.

    Or lets use a different example

    Lets assume that Gen Schwarzkopff at the height of his public awareness was living in the middle of Aberdeen or Richmond for 5+ years and nobody claimed to see him living in a facility that was blatantly different from the usual housing arrangements and where it was apparent that the local security were not from the neighbourhood.

    Incredulity would be high....

  12. #27
    In Memoriam Military Professional Minskaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Aug 12
    Location
    Belarus•Ukraine•Israel
    Posts
    3,608
    The Pakistani public demanded to know what had happened in Abbottabad and a commission was duly appointed to investigate.

    The Abbottabad Commission report was delivered to the GOP in January, but publicly suppressed upon receipt. Why?

    Why did it require a foreign media (Al Jazeera) to publish what should have been publicly available to everyone six months ago?

    To be quite frank, this episode in itself is yet another glaring example of why the Pakistani government is so distrusted.

  13. #28
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Bandaid

    Join Date
    04 Oct 04
    Location
    India
    Posts
    5,001
    Quote Originally Posted by 1980s View Post
    These people are remarkable for their inability to aknowledge plain facts even after they have been caught and called out on them.
    Lol....you hit the nail on the head
    This report is another BS yarn they are trying to spin to tell the world "we are innocent because we dont know our jobs"....

    Cheers!...on the rocks!!

  14. #29
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,939
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Not illegal, not under customary international law or the laws of armed conflict. We are officially allies and co-belligerents, that gives us rights to conduct legitimate war aims where ever the war if officially being fought. For example were allied attacks on Holland and France in WWII illegal? You wont find a single international law regarding belligerents that says an ally can't conduct otherwise legitimate military operations on another allies territory.

    In addition, had the US previously stated that we would go after OBL where ever we found him without needing anyone's permission. Had Pakistan previously pledged and made public statements she was willing to do what ever it took to catch OBL? Obviously the answers are yes to both. It almost sounds like you're more upset that OBL got caught than in celebrating the fact he was caught.
    This does away with the 'act of war' argument quite nicely.

  15. #30
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    This does away with the 'act of war' argument quite nicely.
    Wars have battlefields, not always on the other guys soil. It is completely bogus and unsupportable.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 28 Jun 11,, 07:16
  2. Indian Kashmir 'more free' than all of Pakistan: report
    By Archer in forum International Politics
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01 Feb 07,, 04:27
  3. Report: Taliban regrouping in Pakistan
    By troung in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 13 Dec 06,, 14:49
  4. Report: Pakistan supplied nukes to Syria
    By Hari_Om in forum Central and South Asia
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 14 May 06,, 05:20
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07 Oct 05,, 04:35

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
  •