Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ISI chief implicated in 9/11

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

  • Deltacamelately
    replied
    Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    The Pakistani military's concerns about an Indian military threat are just as justifiable as the US military's 'paranoia' over the Soviet Cold War threat.
    Really? You mass 80% of your forces stratight facing the border. We keep all the Strike Corps deep inside the mainland and you still get paranoid?
    Or is it because you know that your acts of love from time to time gets the Indian adrenalin rushing and wanting?
    Preserving secular attributes or not has nothing to do with the the fact that you are choosing to take the comments attributed to some anonymous retired PA officer working for a political party and apply them across the board to the entire PA officer corps without any credible justification whatsoever.
    Mumbai.
    No retired/political General could authorize the unleashing of that marauding hit sqad. Not by a mile.
    Your Generals/Officers have civilian blood on their sleeves, hence zealots.

    Religious and social conservatism (or being non-secular) does not equate to 'religious zealots and abetting terrorism'. I disagree with your outlandish claims because you have no evidence to support them - if you want to turn this into a popularity contest (majority of world opinion) rather than actually debate and justify your claims, then why not reduce these discussions to posting polling data and survey results and I can stop wasting my time with you?
    Incidently, world opinion is indeed a great indicator. How much hostility does a Pakistani citizen confront on international forms defending ISI/Talibans?
    If that's an indicator, you have your case closed big time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    The Pakistani military's concerns about an Indian military threat are just as justifiable as the US military's 'paranoia' over the Soviet Cold War threat.
    I am not very familiar with Indo-Pak wars, but when was the last time India invaded Pakistan?

    Leave a comment:


  • Deltacamelately
    replied
    Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    Again, I was not referring to Pakistani military capabilities nor her ability to hold off a US military invasion - what I was pointing out was that your comment of 'Pakistan having a US backed transitional government instead of Iraq' displayed the naivete and shallow thinking that one has come to expect from US policy making circles. Since you completely missed the point, let me try again - an Iraq or Afghanistan style transitional government would simply not work because Pakistan did not (in 2001), and certainly does not now, have a 'regime' that a significant majority or plurality could rally around (or silently support), like the Taliban or Saddam. Musharraf was a 'popular dictator' and his popularity, outside of the religious extremist constituency, was pretty high in 2001.

    All this stuff about 'internal Pakistani fissures' ignores the ground realities - the most violent protests in Pakistan against the anti-Islam film in the US were in fact led by two Shia religious groups, the same sect that the Indians would have you believe are going to 'jump right on board the US bandwagon'. Bhutto might have tried to help but the fact that the US had imposed sanctions in Pakistan after her nuclear tests and had invaded Afghanistan would have meant that any public cooperation with US was a 'death sentence', and would have had minimal support in the face of a US attack on Pakistan.

    The problem with US thinking is that too many of you have this 'God/hero complex' - 'The US will ally with XYZ and be welcomed as liberators' - it barely worked in Iraq and Afghanistan and it would have failed right off the bat in Pakistan. A US backed Bhutto in Islamabad after a US invasion would make Karzai's 'Mayor of Kabul' title look good.

    Have you paid any attention to Zardari's poll numbers of late?
    AM,

    Tell me, are you supportive of your government's stand on all issues being discussed here?
    If yes, then my contention that 99% Pakistani citizen believe in the "innocense" of their regime hold true and is a sad reality or rather scarry.

    If no, then there is definitely a sizeable population that would rally around the notion of providing an alternate regime, once they get enough men/material support and relieved-off the fear of Islamists/PAs retaliation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    Looking on the ground, Iraq's or Afghanistan's provisional governments didn't work as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Agnostic Muslim
    replied
    Originally posted by Deltacamelately View Post
    Irrelevant. The paranoia has 60 plus years of forensic evidence.
    The Pakistani military's concerns about an Indian military threat are just as justifiable as the US military's 'paranoia' over the Soviet Cold War threat.
    It would be a canard only if the entire PA Officer Corps would have managed to preserve the secular and professional attributes it inherited from the British Indian Army. However, a significant section, if not the majority have degraded to that of religious zealots swearing Jihad and training/abetting terrorists. You have your own rights to disagree, but then the world opinion is severly tilting away from what you may want to believe.
    Preserving secular attributes or not has nothing to do with the the fact that you are choosing to take the comments attributed to some anonymous retired PA officer working for a political party and apply them across the board to the entire PA officer corps without any credible justification whatsoever.

    Religious and social conservatism (or being non-secular) does not equate to 'religious zealots and abetting terrorism'. I disagree with your outlandish claims because you have no evidence to support them - if you want to turn this into a popularity contest (majority of world opinion) rather than actually debate and justify your claims, then why not reduce these discussions to posting polling data and survey results and I can stop wasting my time with you?

    Leave a comment:


  • Agnostic Muslim
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    In 2001 Pakistan had no air force to speak of, no real navy and its best tank was an up-gunned Chicom copy of the T-55 that could not penetrate the Abrams armor or fight at night. Pakistani unity hasn't stopped India, and lately the Pakistani army has been fighting a virtual civil war against the Pashtun part of the country which is only nominally under federal control anyway even at the best of times. Pakistan's unity is so fragile the country has internal passports, the numbers of minorities have been shrinking as they get forced out, extremism not nationalism is the force on the rise...

    To this must be added the effects of a US attack. I still say nuclear to make sure the Pakistani nukes stayed dead. That is going to cause shock, to which you must add in the sudden sinking of the Pakistani navy, the collapse of the power grid, attacks on C4SRI assets all on night 1. Then a sustained bombing campaign while the US and UK prepare an invasion force. Tough pickle for Pakistan, any army unit that tries to leave the Indo-pak border gets clobbered by the USAF/USN and leaves its brothers that much weaker if India decides to join the coalition of the willing to teach Pakistan a lesson about supporting terror, after all with the US leading the charge and 9-11 providing political cover at the UN its time for some sub-continental score settling.

    While all this is going on, US media outlets interviewing the various talking heads and retired generals start talking about Balouchistan, Pashtunistan and Punjabistan along the lines we see of a new federal semi autonomous arrangement like Iraq (Sunni, Shia, Kurd). Several Pakistani expats along with Bhutto are joined into a Free Pakistan government ready to land in Pakistan and set up a new moderate government.

    Bhutto's supporters would be quick to jump on the chance to give the military some payback. Of course the Musharraf (if he is still alive after US air strikes) will probably strike first and repressive measures against Punjabi moderates aligned with Bhutto will certainly not help Pakistani unity.
    Again, I was not referring to Pakistani military capabilities nor her ability to hold off a US military invasion - what I was pointing out was that your comment of 'Pakistan having a US backed transitional government instead of Iraq' displayed the naivete and shallow thinking that one has come to expect from US policy making circles. Since you completely missed the point, let me try again - an Iraq or Afghanistan style transitional government would simply not work because Pakistan did not (in 2001), and certainly does not now, have a 'regime' that a significant majority or plurality could rally around (or silently support), like the Taliban or Saddam. Musharraf was a 'popular dictator' and his popularity, outside of the religious extremist constituency, was pretty high in 2001.

    All this stuff about 'internal Pakistani fissures' ignores the ground realities - the most violent protests in Pakistan against the anti-Islam film in the US were in fact led by two Shia religious groups, the same sect that the Indians would have you believe are going to 'jump right on board the US bandwagon'. Bhutto might have tried to help but the fact that the US had imposed sanctions in Pakistan after her nuclear tests and had invaded Afghanistan would have meant that any public cooperation with US was a 'death sentence', and would have had minimal support in the face of a US attack on Pakistan.

    The problem with US thinking is that too many of you have this 'God/hero complex' - 'The US will ally with XYZ and be welcomed as liberators' - it barely worked in Iraq and Afghanistan and it would have failed right off the bat in Pakistan. A US backed Bhutto in Islamabad after a US invasion would make Karzai's 'Mayor of Kabul' title look good.

    Have you paid any attention to Zardari's poll numbers of late?

    Leave a comment:


  • Deltacamelately
    replied
    He who doesn't learns, falls. I personally wonder why Pakistan continues to push itself towards that dark corner of terror and jihad, hated by the world community, looked down by former allies, whereas it could always become a home for fine talented people, who could embrace and get embraced in return, by the very people it is waging war against. Where are the gains? From what I see, its loss and further loss that they are incurring while killing and getting killed by their own countrymen.

    What is even a greater surprise - Why aren't the citizen willing to see through what their rulers are upto? By what seems obvious in the cyber world, 99% Paksitanis themselves justify their masters ill-concieved proxy war against the free world, as justified and consider Pakistan and their own self as victimized.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Deltacamelately View Post
    He presented a scenario which I doubt

    i) Either AM and his countrymen have not perceived
    ii) They wilfully prefer to ignore

    What Pakistan should really really worry is a day when the UN, in whatever scenario, gives a green go ahead and I for one do not believe in Pakistan's invincibility.
    My scenario was based on what I felt the US would have done in October 2001 if we had proof then of ISI involvement in 9-11. It was based on US and Pakistani capability then. I added India because in October 2001 the wounds, anger and grief from the Indian Parliament attack were still fresh and raw. It would have been a nightmare scenario for Pakistan. The worlds most powerful military alliance allied with Pakistan's biggest rival both set upon tearing Pakistan apart at the seams for supporting international terrorist strikes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deltacamelately
    replied
    Originally posted by lemontree View Post
    ...and I thought that I was being mean, Jason outdid me :D
    He presented a scenario which I doubt

    i) Either AM and his countrymen have not perceived
    ii) They wilfully prefer to ignore

    What Pakistan should really really worry is a day when the UN, in whatever scenario, gives a green go ahead and I for one do not believe in Pakistan's invincibility.

    Leave a comment:


  • lemontree
    replied
    Originally posted by Minskaya View Post
    Pakistan is also a failed monetary state. If the US should entirely cut off all current funding, Pakistan's treasury would be in severe straits within a fortnight.
    Yes, but Pakistan can get funding from the Saudi's and teh Chinese. But with the Chineses they will have to sell themselves, and they are pretty good at that anyways.

    Leave a comment:


  • lemontree
    replied
    Originally posted by Deltacamelately View Post
    Jason. That was mean. :D
    ...and I thought that I was being mean, Jason outdid me :D

    Leave a comment:


  • Deltacamelately
    replied
    Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    The PA Generals are no more paranoid about India than the US Generals were about the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and some conservatives continue to be WRT China and Russia today.
    Irrelevant. The paranoia has 60 plus years of forensic evidence.

    The whole 'start from scratch' canard is based on comments attributed to some retired officer working for some political party - using that to generalize sentiment across the entire PA Officer Corps would be silly.
    It would be a canard only if the entire PA Officer Corps would have managed to preserve the secular and professional attributes it inherited from the British Indian Army. However, a significant section, if not the majority have degraded to that of religious zealots swearing Jihad and training/abetting terrorists. You have your own rights to disagree, but then the world opinion is severly tilting away from what you may want to believe.

    Leave a comment:


  • Minskaya
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    In 2001 Pakistan had no air force to speak of, no real navy and its best tank was an up-gunned Chicom copy of the T-55 that could not penetrate the Abrams armor or fight at night. Pakistani unity hasn't stopped India, and lately the Pakistani army has been fighting a virtual civil war against the Pashtun part of the country which is only nominally under federal control anyway even at the best of times. Pakistan's unity is so fragile the country has internal passports, the numbers of minorities have been shrinking as they get forced out, extremism not nationalism is the force on the rise....
    Pakistan is also a failed monetary state. If the US should entirely cut off all current funding, Pakistan's treasury would be in severe straits within a fortnight.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deltacamelately
    replied
    Jason. That was mean. :D

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
    Wouldn't have worked - Pakistan is not Iraq, there is no 'majority sect oppressed by a minority dictator'. A US invasion would have only united the majority of the population of Pakistan, with only the handful of Baloch and Sindhi Feudal controlled groups aligning themselves with a US government.

    Your comment illustrates the problem with the thinking in US policy making circles - a detached, simplistic, 'head in the clouds' type of policy prescription for complex problems.
    In 2001 Pakistan had no air force to speak of, no real navy and its best tank was an up-gunned Chicom copy of the T-55 that could not penetrate the Abrams armor or fight at night. Pakistani unity hasn't stopped India, and lately the Pakistani army has been fighting a virtual civil war against the Pashtun part of the country which is only nominally under federal control anyway even at the best of times. Pakistan's unity is so fragile the country has internal passports, the numbers of minorities have been shrinking as they get forced out, extremism not nationalism is the force on the rise...

    To this must be added the effects of a US attack. I still say nuclear to make sure the Pakistani nukes stayed dead. That is going to cause shock, to which you must add in the sudden sinking of the Pakistani navy, the collapse of the power grid, attacks on C4SRI assets all on night 1. Then a sustained bombing campaign while the US and UK prepare an invasion force. Tough pickle for Pakistan, any army unit that tries to leave the Indo-pak border gets clobbered by the USAF/USN and leaves its brothers that much weaker if India decides to join the coalition of the willing to teach Pakistan a lesson about supporting terror, after all with the US leading the charge and 9-11 providing political cover at the UN its time for some sub-continental score settling.

    While all this is going on, US media outlets interviewing the various talking heads and retired generals start talking about Balouchistan, Pashtunistan and Punjabistan along the lines we see of a new federal semi autonomous arrangement like Iraq (Sunni, Shia, Kurd). Several Pakistani expats along with Bhutto are joined into a Free Pakistan government ready to land in Pakistan and set up a new moderate government.

    Bhutto's supporters would be quick to jump on the chance to give the military some payback. Of course the Musharraf (if he is still alive after US air strikes) will probably strike first and repressive measures against Punjabi moderates aligned with Bhutto will certainly not help Pakistani unity.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X