Discussion in 'International News' started by JBigjake, Sep 16, 2010.
Is there really any doubt? (some of Pakistan military/intelligence)
My understanding is that he was paid by his country to be surgeon-general of Khyber. He was paid by a foreign power to do something with was competely incongruent with his role, and in fact to do something that was counter-productive to his role. His actions lead to the killing of Bin Laden, but also civilians such as the couriers, a woman and Bin Laden's unarmed son. Some of those killed held Pakistani citizenship. The raid itself certainly violated Pakistani sovereignty, and he would probably have assisted in that. So yeah, he was a traitor.
And if the US were so chummy with their "ally" Pakistan, they might have wanted to tell them before invading their country and violating their sovereignty. Being an ally doesn't just work one way. What you are thinking of is not an alliance, it's servitude or at best vassal status.
You are absolutely correct here. My question is at what point was Pakistan going to uphold their end of the deal?
Well, to answer that we would probably have to ask Richard Armitage about the exact terms of the deal...
Hmm. Suppose the USA had done so, and OBL had mysteriously disappeared, prior to any action, either by US forces or by the Pakistani military or police? Would Pakistan have conducted an intensive investigation into the leak, including arresting & imprisoning for decades the person(s) who leaked the info & tipped OBL off? Would Pakistan have launched a nationwide search, to track down & arrest OBL , as well as those accompanying or aiding him? Would he have been caught? Alive? Imprisoned? Extradited? Escaped? Been released on bail? Disappeared again?
Sadly, the USA can't trust the Pakistanis, due to traitors within Pakistan's own military or government. Of course, those traitors are never outed, or dealt with.
Interesting hypothetical, but I'm pretty sure you know that it cannot be answered definitively, since the Americans did not in fact trust their allies, and chose instead to invade them. But I'm pretty certain that the Pakistanis are the ones who have captured most of the top Al-Qaida leadership who are/were in custody, and have even sold their own citizens to the Americans. And they have lost over thirty thousand citizens fighting a War on behalf of the Americans, a War which is not in their national interest. So maybe they deserved the benefit of the doubt, instead of a slap in the face?
The only times I can recall the escape of top Taliban/Al-Qaeda leadership was not when they were tipped off by the Pakistanis (has this actually ever happened?). Once was Tora Bora, which was due to the incompetence of the Americans, and the other was when they had Mullah Omar surrounded in Baghran, but he escaped on a motorbike in suspicious circumstances, again due to the incompetence of the Americans and their allies. It's a bit rich for them now to insinuate that the Pakistanis would be the cause of any failure to capture Bin Laden.
Unfortunately, I think that it can.
This is not an unusual situation for the USA. I am old enough to remember when the French component of NATO was riddled with traitors & spies for the Soviets. The British were not much better.
The Pakistan government has accomplished a lot, despite the efforts of many within it to betray it, or render aid & comfort to its enemies.
IMO, the fatalities are due mostly to the treachery of Pakistanis themselves, who betray their own people to the Taliban or fight a quasi-civil war based on butchery.
Your opinion. Obviously, the political and military leadership have made and maintained a decision to ally with the USA, out of concern from real or imagined enemies on all sides, a range that includes India, China, the Talibs, the Afghans, and Iran.
Again, unfortunately, no. This was too big, to chance it.
They'll get over it. Deep down inside, they know why the US acted as it did, but can't publicly acknowledge or even discuss the traitors within.
Frankly, the USA should have done more to extract the doctor prior to, at the time of, or immediately after, the raid. It should have anticipated the official reaction, the likelihood of detection, and the certainty of extreme punishment.
This was really funny. Repped.
How many people were dying due to Pakistanis betraying their people to the Taliban pre-2001? The cause of the conflict in the border regions is due to the assault on the population there by the Pakistani military acting as proxies for the Americans, and by the Americans directly via drones and occasional raids. The tribes there are reacting to this situation by refusing to stay there passively to get slaughtered, and instead bringing the War to the Pakistani military heartland. It could all be ended by Pakistan withdrawing all support for the US-led War, and declining military aid. It would be in line with their traditional policy regarding Afghanistan, and be in line with the feelings of their people.
Fixed that for you. I think we all know which of his occupations took priority.
Well, had he been permitted to post a Real Property Bond, on a fine piece of local real estate with substantial improvements, we can surmise that the government would have forfeited it upon his eventual absconding. Some retired officer would have picked it up at a decent price, at a fixed auction, and would be inhabiting the compound with his extended family today!
Perhaps, he would be practicing medicine today, in some American community with a high concentration of Pakistani ex-pats, rather than languishing in prison in his homeland.
Or, holding an important government position here:
He'll get over it. Deep down inside he'll understand why the Pakistanis had to put his ass in jail.
Because he helped the US get obl instead of helping Pakistan hide him.
"According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, at least 943 women and girls were murdered last year after being accused of defaming their family's honor."
India has a similar problem, not just at home:
These idiots in Pakistan who do this sort of thing should be executed for murder, and it would be a nice touch to add "defiling the honour of their nation and their religion" onto a charge sheet somewhere in addition to the murder charge. The fact that it was an alleged "honour killing" should be seen as an aggravating feature and not a mitigating one.
I have to think that if members of their mosque, it would be parish for my denomination, stood up and decried this behavior, and this includes Imam's and Clerics, that maybe then this type of murder would stop. I think that it is in this cases where not having a Pope type leader hinders Islam because you don't have a religious leader per sei who can definativly say this is Un-Islamic and denounce this behavior. Umar is there a central leader or group of leaders who if they did make such a statement would it make difference? I have to think that in many of these honor killings they are carrying on tribal customs and not following Islam.
I very seriously doubt that these people would consult an Imam before killing their children, or that there are any Imams worth their salt who would condone these killings. You don't need a muslim Pope to stand up and say it is wrong - it is manifestly clear that this is unacceptable under Islamic law. The prohibition on killing your children is clear in the Quran in chapter 60 verse 12, and was also one of the terms of the earliest oaths taken by the Prophet in Islam, the first oath at Aqabah.
This concept of honour killing is a tribal or cultural thing. It happens in some parts of the Middle East in non-Muslim cultures, and happens in the Indian subcontinent in non-Muslim cultures. Yes, people need to be educated in regions where it is socially accepted, but in addition they need to start implementing the death penalty for the people who do it.
I realize it isn't an Islamic issue, I am just wondering though if the Imam's or Clerics have a strong enough influence to change the pattern in those tribes/culture's where this happens. I pose the same question to those in the Indian Sub-Cont. but I don't know if anyone here posting would have that answer.
This should make things interesting.....
Another top AQ member living safely in pakistan has been targeted by a US drone strike.
This helps explain why pakistan was complaining about the legality of US strikes from drones in Pakistan.
Let's take the 15 militants thing with a pinch of salt. It sounds like one of those illegal "signature strikes" to me, with them bombing the place again as a rescue effort was underway after the first strike.
I am sure that in the region where the strike took place it was just chock full of peace loving innocents who would never be terrorists or aq members.......
So lets bomb everything. They should drop a nuke there.
Read up on signature strikes. They kill people for nothing. If I were living in a warzone, I'd go help my neighbours if their house got bombed. According to the signature strike programme, that'd make me a legitimate target for death. It's no better than bombing a funeral procession or ambulance.
Wow. You (literally) nuked that strawman, Umar...
I don't think it really matters if the US continues drone strikes in the area or not as it pertains to anti-US sentiment. They wouldn't like us regardless.
The fact is that there are aq leaders and terrorists living in this region and use this region to attack US forces in Afghanistan. The US should simply quit being nice about this and let it be known that if you attack our forces we will follow you and we will hit you and hit you hard regardless of what border you cross. Pakistan can either accept this, or they can try and stop it from happening.
I would hope that you would help your neighbors if their house were bombed. I would too. Of course if those neighbors were suspected terrorists I might be less inclined to live near them in the first place though.
Suspected of terrorism by who? The US kills people from thousands of miles away without knowing who they are, so how can it suspect them of being terrorists? Attending a funeral of someone killed in a previous drone attack is seen as suspicious activity which marks people for death by the US. Now THAT is terrorism.
Separate names with a comma.