Britons training in Pakistan for UK terror attacks

[vsdoc]

"We are instead talking about the US securing Pakistan's nuclear assets ..."

I hope not. A pointless exercise likely to fail.

I can understand the likely to fail part. But why pointless? Please help me understand the American perspective on this. Is it just a cost-benefit thing vis-a-vis purely American interests? If so, America has gone to war for less in the past.

This is correct-

"...Currently its just a millstone around the American neck..."

-and sums the American conumdrum perfectly. As currently configured Pakistan shall remain a millstone indefinitely. There is no compelling force to invoke change. I've a Pakistani friend here, IHM, who's working hard with his friends to shift the paradigm of political thought inside his country. In my view he is very, very brave. However, like the Green movement in Iran, those efforts will likely prove too little, too late.

Afghanistan is gone. We should be too in the face of that reality. It is, in fact, small potatoes in a much larger scenario calling for the removal of the facade now covering the GoP and, more importantly, the PA and ISI.

I've been prepared since 2007 to take one step back in Afghanistan to move two steps forward WRT Pakistan. Doing so, IMV, will highlight Pakistan's strategic objectives as diametrically opposed to the globe's good order. This is imperative.

Worse, the Pakistanis appear to have little appreciation for the blowback awaiting them should the afghan taliban be fully unleashed, as is their current bent. What they're now experiencing is but a small harbinger concerning the shape of things to come. In turn, such a reversal of fortune in Pakistan will likely provide America with the rationale for a more overt and onerous intervention.

I agree 100%. And I somehow suspect that America is building up to that. Time will tell, but we live in hope meanwhile.

Again, if you are not talking about de-nuking them first and foremost, what more overt and onerous intervention are you talking about? I suspect its bombing the crap out of them without repeating the mistake of committing your troops. But that would simply rile them further and leave you open to lone wolf attacks on your mainland somewhere close down the line.

The facade imho has already been yanked away with the recent NATO-Pak flareup. In a war situation, an attack on your line of supply IS an act of war. Simple. Is it not then time that the US truly in action more than words hyphenates the AF-PAK theater and dissolves the self imposed boundaries of the artificial "ally" Durand line when it comes to expansion of theater of operation and hot pursuit?

Simply put, we need to help Pakistan help itself.

Cheers, Doc

[S2]

vsdoc Reply

Doc,

"But why pointless?"

I've little doubt that these weapons are well-hidden and well-protected from attack by any imaginable means. Locating them is absolutely not a given IMV. Assuming redundancies in dispersal of components means some warheads would likely survive. Without getting into specifics, I don't think we could muster the troops to take and hold all necessary objectives, secure the jewels, and wisk them to safe harbor.

Failing to do so means open war.

IMV, the Pakistani powers-that-be must face a crisis of such immense proportions that they see transporting these jewels into safekeeping as the guarantor of their own survival-either within or without Pakistan.

"I suspect its bombing the crap out of them..."

I suspect there are about 150 known and verified targets on the so-called retribution plan's target list. Didn't you say this-

"What is the use of de-fanging a snake after it has bitten you?"?

If so, those targets would serve as a perfect point-of-departure for all that follows while mitigating the liklihood of lone-wolf attacks. In truth, those targets already constitute an unacceptable threat to my nation's nat'l security. Attacking them constitutes no directly functional threat to the Pakistani nat'l security apparatus.

"...that would simply rile them further..."

So? As though they aren't largely riled beyond good sense already?

"...and leave you open to lone wolf attacks on your mainland somewhere close down the line..."

Perhaps. There's actually a long list of those whom Pakistanis might wish to see attacked, lone-wolf or otherwise. Some, regardless of direct involvement, more easily reached than others. In any case, it's truly a rare day when opportunity presents itself sans risk.

The key is Afghanistan and a resurgent and triumphant taliban. Not just America but the rest of the west along with India, China, and Russia share in the present debacle. Fair enough. Round one to Pakistan. In their triumph, though, lie the seeds of Pakistan's destruction. These must be fostered and cultivated in unlikely ways.

The best way and least intrusive to Pakistani sensibilities? Abject neglect. Do nothing overt. Simply cease all aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan while withdrawing our troops and civil aid. Their presence is pointless towards reversing Afghanistan's enduring malaise in any case. Events will unfold naturally from there. In the interim, station an SOF task-force off the Pakistani coast with authorization to attack any and all terror targets-of-opportunity as they present themselves.

My thoughts acknowledge that matters must get worse before becoming better. The alternative of somnolently staggering along the current path is unacceptable to my sensibilities.

[kuku]

Even the Germans are getting in to it. I cant see why someone would want to give up the good life in a western country to go get terror training from some geezer that lives in a cave. Beer tastes good. Pork chops taste good.

Drone strike kills 5 Germans in Pakistan - thestar.com

SPIEGEL: A German member of the militant Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, 36-year-old Ahmad Sidiqi, who has been held by US forces in Afghanistan since July, allegedly told his American interrogators that he was trained in Pakistan and confessed there were plans to attack Europe. Why, nine years after 9/11, does Pakistan remain a breeding ground for international terrorism?

Musharraf: We poisoned Pakistani civil society for 10 years when we fought the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. It was jihad and we brought in militants from all over the world, with the West and Pakistan together in the lead role.............................................. ..

SPIEGEL: How can the problem be solved?

Musharraf: The West made three blunders so far: After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, they abandoned the region in 1989. Then, after 9/11, they fought the Taliban instead of strengthening the Pashtuns who could have taken on the radical Taliban. Now you try to negotiate with so-called "moderate Taliban," but there is no such thing as a moderate Taliban. There are Taliban and Pashtuns. But as I have always said: All Taliban are Pashtun, but not all Pashtun people are Taliban. Again, you should reinforce the ancient Pashtun clans who are not ideologically aligned with the Taliban to govern Afghanistan and to fight the Taliban. That's my strong advice. The fourth and worst blunder would be to quit without winning. Then militancy will prevail not only in Pakistan, India and Kashmir, but perhaps also in Europe, the United Kingdom and in the United States. That's my belief.

SPIEGEL Interview with Pervez Musharraf: 'Pakistan is Always Seen as the Rogue' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Planning and training, with passport holders from Other nations training to attack their own country.

I think anyone suspicious coming from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, the whole region will have to be put under strict surveillance.

[Double Edge]

Two days after an act that could have potentially left a large part of downtown Manhattan as smouldering radioactive rubble is by no means "good going" my friend.

If you are referring to the midtown bomber rather than a future hypothetical event, can you explain the bolded part ?

The US dodged a bullet this time around, and they are scared shitless at that knowledge and the very real impending threat from such lone wolf "non-state actors". As they should be. As should we.

Lone wolf's they can deal with, coordinated, simultaneous strikes against several landmarks, perhaps not.

National security. And the young american soldiers coming home in body bags.

You're referring to a future hypothetical event. As it stands right now there is no threat emanating specifically from Pakistan towards the US. Or at the least nothing that they can act upon directly at the moment.

The Pakistani state would not. But the Pakistani state counts for only so much in Pakistan. In fact, push comes to shove, the idea of Pakistan itself means only so much in large swathes of what is puportedly (and very loosely) "Pakistan".

There are many interests within Pakistan, both internal and external, that see the US as the enemy, and they the holy warriors in this final Jihad against the evil godless army of the Crusaders (with the Jews and Hindus clubbed alongside by proxy). You cannot reason with such forces. They see themselves ruling the earth one day as a divinely pre-ordained right..

And i still stick with what i said earlier, the Pakistani state has to date controlled these non-state actors so they do not act against its interests in fact its quite the contrary, whatever has been done has maintained if not augmented the status quo in Pakistan's interest.

Things are not as out of control as we are given to believe. The illusion that it is, benefits Pakistan the most.

Else can you name any instances where these non-state actors acted in any way that threathened the Pak state. I cannot think of a single one in the last 10-20 years as nothing overly detrimental has occurred to Pakistan since.

Pakistan had its uses to such an effect in the past. Currently its just a millstone around the American neck.

They are a means to an end. It might appear that their current role is not all that it can be but they will find a way to make themselves useful in the future.

That is exactly what I was saying earlier. Pakistan does more harm to the WOT effort by what it steadfastly fails to do, than is offset by what it does. In fact, the fact that the western forces are forced to keep propping up the now crumbling edifice of "ally in WOT" further ties their hands as opposed to their response were pakistan to be openly acknowledged as the enemy aggressor. Ask any military man here ..... he would concur.

Perhaps but nothing deterimental is on the cards and its all going in Pakistan's interest.

We are instead talking about the US securing Pakistan's nuclear assets as the Israelis and Indians look on as very visibly hands-off bystanders.

And why will Pakistan allow them to do so ? Put another way how will the US convince them to do this.

The only thing you've said to this effect is that their arsenal does not act in a way that augments US interest. But this was obvious right from the start and the only US reaction towards it was the Pressler Amenment. Nothing more.

[Pakmiran]

Always remember that Pakistan has its own interests. What's Pakistan trying to achieve by supporting terror ops? I suspect this blockade of the supply line was a method to aid in the success of these European gunmen by discouraging overt or covert American actions in Pakistani territory. What's the agenda?

[vsdoc]

I suspect there are about 150 known and verified targets on the so-called retribution plan's target list. Didn't you say this-

"What is the use of de-fanging a snake after it has bitten you?"?

If so, those targets would serve as a perfect point-of-departure for all that follows while mitigating the liklihood of lone-wolf attacks. In truth, those targets already constitute an unacceptable threat to my nation's nat'l security. Attacking them constitutes no directly functional threat to the Pakistani nat'l security apparatus.

The problem with this plan is up to date intelligence from the ground, as these targets are likely to be pretty fluid and dynamic and nomadic in nature, at least in terms of the human element. It would still be an act of open war though, to whatever extent that affects the American decision making apparatus and polical and military response.

"...that would simply rile them further..."

So? As though they aren't largely riled beyond good sense already?

Yes they are, but there is a difference between a few and far in between Shahzads, and a Shahzad in every major American city, in waves, relentlessly. That is a very real risk with the kind of Pakistani population you have living in the US currently ...... with families back home who would be there when the crap is being bombed out of them by US forces.

Does US intelligence have the reach and the resources to keep tabs on each one of them? What sort of social profiling would the government of the world's most powerful democracy and shining beacon of the free world be willing to put in place institutionally? Important points to ponder, as the US does not exist in vacuo.

The best way and least intrusive to Pakistani sensibilities? Abject neglect. Do nothing overt. Simply cease all aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan while withdrawing our troops and civil aid. Their presence is pointless towards reversing Afghanistan's enduring malaise in any case. Events will unfold naturally from there. In the interim, station an SOF task-force off the Pakistani coast with authorization to attack any and all terror targets-of-opportunity as they present themselves.

My thoughts acknowledge that matters must get worse before becoming better. The alternative of somnolently staggering along the current path is unacceptable to my sensibilities.

I agree that currently on the back of a decade of twin wars which have sapped your national fabric in terms of will, patience, resources, and consensus, this would seem like the most attractive option. But what happens to the huge investment the US has already made in Pakistan over the past decades. Would you be willing to give up all of that and your foot firmly into the Asian pie just for the d=satisfaction of bombing their cities and people? You could have done that anyways 10 years ago.

I feel the US needs to stay the distance where the last mile is concerned. Strike at the heart of the snake nest, instead of wasting time and men in a region that lives to fight, and has nothing else to offer, and will be exactly the same once you leave, which will make you question the 10 years, billions of dollars, and hundreds of lives you lost there. For what? Of course it would need a paradigm shift in DC thinking and hard decisions to be made. Obama may or may not be the guy for that. But there is no escaping the fact about where the real war should actually have been fought, and who the real foe really was all along.

We have a saying in Hindi - der aaye par durust aaye. (translation - better late than never).

Cheers, Doc

[Officer of Engineers]

Two days after an act that could have potentially left a large part of downtown Manhattan as smouldering radioactive rubble is by no means "good going" my friend. The US dodged a bullet this time around, and they are scared shitless at that knowledge and the very real impending threat from such lone wolf "non-state actors". As they should be. As should we.

No non-state actor has access to nukes. If there is a nuke delivered by a non-state actor, that state who supplied the nuke in the first place would be a clean sheet of glass.

[Pakmiran]

It would be nice to think so, eh?

[vsdoc]

If you are referring to the midtown bomber rather than a future hypothetical event, can you explain the bolded part ?

I am referring to the very real possibility of a future Shahzad with a dirty bomb that has either been smuggled in from the sea or else built/assembled partially or wholly on mainland US, for detonation on mainland US. That's what I meant when I said that the US dodged a bullet this time around.

Lone wolf's they can deal with, coordinated, simultaneous strikes against several landmarks, perhaps not.

I don't think they can. They could not in this case. And historically the US has not had a very good track record of detecting and dealing with lone wolves on time. Afterwards really is too little too late. The damage is done. One man versus the lives of hundreds, maybe thousands, maybe more, is never going to be good barter.

S-2 says that opportunity rarely presents itself sans risk. I say even the remote possibility of something like this succeeding will have the loonies queing up for their dig at the divine virgins. Look at what they risk versus what the western world and its cities do. Compare the relative cost of life at these two extremes of the human spectrum. And tell me if the chills don't start going down your/our collective spine.

You're referring to a future hypothetical event. As it stands right now there is no threat emanating specifically from Pakistan towards the US. Or at the least nothing that they can act upon directly at the moment.

I do not agree. Neither I suspect does the US state and those that are calling the shots on homeland security. I suppose on this time will tell which one of us was right.

And i still stick with what i said earlier, the Pakistani state has to date controlled these non-state actors so they do not act against its interests in fact its quite the contrary, whatever has been done has maintained if not augmented the status quo in Pakistan's interest.

The Pakistani state did not know about or control Shahzad. Neither have they controlled terror acts that have a sickening habit of now leading back to pakistan through not very forked linkages. I fail to see how the weight of this evidence in the collective perception and stance of the western powers towards pakistan can be helping Pakistan. The tide is shifting and pakistan will increasingly be isolated and called to book. No longer do they have a blank cheque to encash, often to the detriment of India.

Things are not as out of control as we are given to believe. The illusion that it is, benefits Pakistan the most.

All that stops the minute the US feels directly threatened. Or looks elsewhere for a solution to the mess. Its not possible for a superpower to continue labouring under the delusion that the entity creating the mess is the one that will magically finally hold the key to the broom closet that will help clean it up. First killing someone and then loudly professing noble intentions in helping to catch the perpetrator (for a fee) is called blackmail most where else, and is not the sort of arm twisting the US would endure for too much longer.

Else can you name any instances where these non-state actors acted in any way that threathened the Pak state. I cannot think of a single one in the last 10-20 years as nothing overly detrimental has occurred to Pakistan since.

Please see above.

They are a means to an end. It might appear that their current role is not all that it can be but they will find a way to make themselves useful in the future.

I feel they have exhausted all possible goodwill and have tried the patience of one and all to the breaking point. Retribution is not far away, and I can only pray that we get a crack at them while there still some life left in thm as a nation state capable of hitting back.

And why will Pakistan allow them to do so ? Put another way how will the US convince them to do this.

We are not talking about a negotiated permission here. But S-2 has already answered this.

The only thing you've said to this effect is that their arsenal does not act in a way that augments US interest. But this was obvious right from the start and the only US reaction towards it was the Pressler Amenment. Nothing more.

A lot of US blood and dollars have flowed under the bridge since then, with the very real threat of the madness now crossing the seven seas and hitting home. The US will act. Of that I have no doubt. How, where, and with what is the only question I would be interested in knowing. The when is pretty much nigh.

Cheers, Doc

[vsdoc]

No non-state actor has access to nukes. If there is a nuke delivered by a non-state actor, that state who supplied the nuke in the first place would be a clean sheet of glass.

So the "dirty bomb" is just a figment of Hollywood imagination as in the Harrison Ford movie (I forget the name)?

Be that as it may, the US's record at detecting and controlling nuclear proliferation around the world from full fledged nation states themselves hasn't been too good has it sir?

It would be naive and overly optimistic not to work that probability into the equation imho.

Cheers, Doc

[667medic]

Britons BRITONS , them piles of shite dont deserve to be called Britons , they take the name along with the benefits , hide behind face fungus , pillar box their women , and bite the hand that feeds them , well you fkin cowardly pieces of camel shit , piss off back to wherever your loyalties lay and friggin well stay there , and take your families and friends with you , Mr Cameron , i just reduced the deficit for ya without you cutting child benefits and the NHS , get fkin rid of em .

:maddest::maddest::maddest:

Mr. Tankie, I have talked to enough of your countrymen and they all share similar sentiment regarding these creatures. Beats me as to why Britan keeps sheltering these people. I don't know much about your politics, do your politicians also follow vote bank politics....

[hammer]

So the "dirty bomb" is just a figment of Hollywood imagination as in the Harrison Ford movie (I forget the name)?

Actually the "dirty bomb" is a possibility. But nukes are a whole different ball game. The Col. is saying that the once the origins of the nuke is found, the country that held the material would be a nuclear waste land. Also I understand that a "dirty bomb" does not warrant a nuclear retaliation. Col, pls correct me If I am wrong.

[vsdoc]

Actually the "dirty bomb" is a possibility. But nukes are a whole different ball game. The Col. is saying that the once the origins of the nuke is found, the country that held the material would be a nuclear waste land. Also I understand that a "dirty bomb" does not warrant a nuclear retaliation. Col. pls correct me If I am wrong.

I am talking about a garage assembled dirty bomb, not a full fledged nuke. I dont know well the technicalities of the kill potential, but I read somewhere that in a more compressed area it is still pretty lethal. Fatalities definitely way way more than 9/11 if the site is well chosen in terms of population density and weather. Also, from what little I know, the material used to make such a bomb could have been procured from the target country itself, from otherwise innocuous industrial sources. Who are you going to nuke in retaliation?

Cheers, Doc

[hammer]

Exactly! I guess that is why there won't be a nuclear response for a "dirty bomb" attack.

But I don't think you would need a rocket scientist to find out where the attacks have originated from, if it ever happens.

[Officer of Engineers]

So the "dirty bomb" is just a figment of Hollywood imagination as in the Harrison Ford movie (I forget the name)?

The most disastrous effect of a dirty bomb is panic. I could do more physical damage 20 cans of pesticide strategically placed.