Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ISI chief implicated in 9/11

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

  • #31
    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.

    Comment


    • #32
      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.
      sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

      Comment


      • #33
        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?
        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
          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?
          Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
          https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

          Comment


          • #35
            Looking on the ground, Iraq's or Afghanistan's provisional governments didn't work as well.
            No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

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

            Comment


            • #36
              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.
              sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

              Comment


              • #37
                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?
                No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

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

                Comment


                • #38
                  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.
                  sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                    I am not very familiar with Indo-Pak wars, but when was the last time India invaded Pakistan?
                    Junagadh in 1947, East Pakistan in 1971, Siachen 1984.
                    Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                    https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Deltacamelately View Post
                      AM,

                      Tell me, are you supportive of your government's stand on all issues being discussed here?
                      That is a broad and generic question. If you have questions on specific policy positions you allege the GoP takes, then we can discuss those individually, starting from whether or not the GoP even takes the positions you claim it does on certain issues.
                      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.
                      Again, broad generalizations and shallow questions expecting simplistic and shallow answers - this is hopefully not the direction that Indian policy making circles are moving towards ...
                      Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                      https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                        Looking on the ground, Iraq's or Afghanistan's provisional governments didn't work as well.
                        They didn't, but in both cases there was a temporary 'lull' and 'period of peace' as two widely despised autocratic regimes were toppled. My point is that in Pakistan even that 'lull' would have not have been available, because Musharraf in fact ended up being more popular that both Bhutto and Sharif, at least until 2007-2008, and his regime ended up being far more tolerant and 'moderate' than the previous regimes of Bhutto and Sharif.
                        Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                        https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                          That is a broad and generic question. If you have questions on specific policy positions you allege the GoP takes, then we can discuss those individually, starting from whether or not the GoP even takes the positions you claim it does on certain issues.

                          Again, broad generalizations and shallow questions expecting simplistic and shallow answers - this is hopefully not the direction that Indian policy making circles are moving towards ...
                          I gave you a starter. Mumbai.

                          Your government and military have washed their hands in calling it a "Non-State Actor" operation. Majority of the Pakistani internet warriors believe this to be true.
                          Your take if similar, is scary. Otherwise, I would have hope in an alternate regime that could be assembled.
                          sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                            Junagadh in 1947, East Pakistan in 1971, Siachen 1984.
                            Thanks for the info.

                            From wiki I could find only this:

                            On 22 October 1947 the Pakistani armed forces crossed the border with the claim that they needed to suppress a rebellion on the southeast of the kingdom.
                            Junagadh was in November.

                            The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 was a military conflict between India and Pakistan. Indian, Bangladeshi and international sources consider the beginning of the war to be Operation Chengiz Khan, Pakistan's 3 December 1971 preemptive strike on 11 Indian airbases.[21][22] Lasting just 13 days it is considered one of the shortest wars in history.[23][24]
                            The Siachen Conflict, sometimes referred to as the Siachen War, is a military conflict between India and Pakistan over the disputed Siachen Glacier region in Kashmir. A cease-fire went into effect in 2003. The conflict began in 1984 with India's successful Operation Meghdoot during which it wrested control of the Siachen Glacier (unoccupied and not demarcated area).
                            Arguable if it was actually an invasion.

                            I am not judging or anything, just trying to understand a bit more.
                            No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

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

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                              Junagadh in 1947, East Pakistan in 1971, Siachen 1984.
                              Uh, Siachen wasn't in Pakistan. Neither was Junagadh. The refugee problem and the PA's murderous rampage in East Pakistan had forced India's hand in 1971. Despite that, technically it was Pakistan that struck first with the airstrike. Just like 1947. Just like 1965. And just like 1999.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                                Junagadh in 1947,
                                The irony here is that you cannot claim that India aggressed in Junagadh without accepting the fact that Pakistan aggressed in Kashmir. When the Pakistani army moved into Kashmir, within a month, India secured Junagadh. If you argue that Junagadh belongs to Pakistan, than how can you argue in the same breath that Kashmir does not belong to India? Can't have your cake and eat it too!

                                East Pakistan in 1971,
                                It had to happen. Your dictator and army were killing East Pakistanis en mass, resulting in East Paks crossing over to India in their millions and settling in refugee camps. War became a cheaper option than feeding millions of refugees. Pakistan made the argument for war even more easier when they struck Indian airbases in a very poor attempt to replicate Israel's surprise bombing run of Egypt's airbases.

                                Siachen 1984.
                                Siachen was not Pakistani territory so the claim of India "invading" Pakistani territory is a farce. After Pakistan's surrender in the '71 war, your government agreed to the clause "(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line."

                                The problem was with the LoC at Siachen where the line was not demarcated, and the clause was left as;

                                (d) From Dalunang eastwards the cease-fire line will follow the general line point 15495, Ishman, Manus, Gangam, Gunderman, Point 13620, Funkar (Point 17628), Marmak, Natsara, Shangruti (Point 1,531), Chorbat La (Point 16700), Chalunka (on the Shyok River), Khor, thence north to the glaciers. This portion of the cease- fire line shall be demarcated in detail on the basis of the factual position as of 27 July, 1949, by the local commanders assisted by United Nations military observers.
                                Now, "thence North to the Glaciers" began to be translated differently in Pakistan, when they started to claim Siachen as their own territory and started issuing visas and sending international mountaineering expeditions to the Glacier! What's more, when the Indian army decided to secure the Glacier, they discovered your military posts were already sitting atop!

                                Now, take one look at the Siachen map:



                                "Thence North to the Glaciers", if translated as in India, would be draw a straight 90 degrees line from Khor upwards, 2/3rds of the glacier fall on the Indian side. Pakistan's translation of "thence North to the Glaciers" is a line traversing a North-East trajectory making the Siachen glacier part of Pakistani territory. So, it's up to you whose translation, of a very poorly worded document, you buy.
                                Attached Files
                                Last edited by Tronic; 19 Sep 12,, 03:54.
                                Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
                                -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X