Pakistan, al Qaeda, ISI, Taleban, etc

All of these, (xpt the 1st), are old links from old rants.

And you want to debate what again?

You know, I just now finished reading that article in The New Yorker, and I thought to myself, wow, that would be a great subject for a thread.
Especially the part about how resources were stripped from the hunt for Bin Laden for the Iraq war, a thing I always suspected, and a thing which just makes me even more furious about that egregious waste of lives and money.
We couldn’t have a more incompetent President at the helm at a moment of need than the one we have now. I’ve never been more anxious for Election Day.

How much of a threat comes from Pakistan.
and
How much help is Pakistan in the WoT.

‘War on Terrorism’ – Is this still 2001 ? You’re swallowing that Administration line again rather than look at he world around you (including the vast experiences of other societies).

No point in addressing ‘terrorism’ in those (warring) terms cos you can’t beat it. Ever. Hence the US withdrawal from Saudi, etc. It might be what the public want to hear, but the phrase is a nonsense. Ask Israeli’s – now 55 years down the road - how that ‘war’ and total domination of the society that breeds the ‘terrorists’ has fared . . .

FTR, this is an old chestnut from October 2001. One has to be concerned as to the veracity given the tension between India and Pakistan at the time:

*"NEW DELHI: While the Pakistani Inter Services Public Relations claimed that former ISI director-general Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad sought retirement after being superseded on Monday, the truth is more shocking.

Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday, that the general lost his job because of the “evidence” India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre. The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen Mahumd "*

Radical Islam is everywhere, it’s institutional, mainstream and pandemic. Some actively support extremist actions/solutions, some don’t. Above all, we should understand al Qaeda is a mere symptom, an irritating visual rash.

If Pakistan is a ‘threat’ today, it can be anywhere you like tomorrow.

For all of those doubtful of claims by independent news on the web, the Wall Street Journal repeated the claim from the Times of India, that was subsequently repoted in the Dawn newspaper of Pakistan.

Check Out this page for a good over analysis of Pakistan’s complicity, and evidence of a doctored C. Rice interview regarding the visiting INI chief.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html

Remember what reported Richard Pearle was researching in Pakistan when he was abducted and killed? Pakistani links to al-Queda.

Why hasn’t a possible Pakistan link been mentioned in the national press? Is this a deliberate deception - referring solely to Saudi Arabia as a sponsor? Why are we covering for Pakistan? The only rational reason would be the most logical one, that it must be done to further Bush’s own interests - like everything else. There must be a plan down the road to take Saudi Arabia. I have a problem believing that we’re covering for the ISI beacuse we need their help in the WOT. Keeping OBL on the loose just keeps the game going, lining everyone’s pockets - so we don’t really want to find him. There must be some profit to be made by us. Anyone have a good explanation for ignoring Pakistan?

Of course, if we fight this “root cause”, well, we all know where that leads us…

In response to Akrako1’s question “why are we ignoring Pakistan?,” it is such a can of worms that it is difficult to even broach a discussion here. It goes back to BCCI, the CIA’s training of the mujahideen, the links to Pakistan’s ISI, opium and heroin smuggling, Bush family’s business links with Bin Mahfouz and the Ben Ladin family, etc. etc. If the American public really understood what was going on here there would be a huge scandal. That is the “national security”–Bush’s security, not the nation’s-- that is being protected by classifying those 28 pages, and what’s in there is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Anyway, this timeline give some good background info:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/AAisidrugs.html

That is an extraordinary site. Truly.

“Why are we ignoring Pakistan?”. Everyone on this board knows that I have no love for Shrub’s foreign policy, but it wouldn’t be justified to say that our refusal to demand full cooperation in the hunt for Al Queda and Taliban members is entirely to protect him. From the articles that I’ve read, it seems that the situation is that the Pakistani government enjoys solid support in some regions of the country, but there are also vast areas where the real control is held by tribal councils that are generally anti-Western and in some cases friendly to Islamic extremists. What we’d really like, of course,would be to have all such areas brought under the control of some group that would be willing to hunt agressively for Al Queda and Taliban operatives, but that’s not a practical possibility. And in the meanwhile, there’s nothing to be gained by increasing pressure on the government. If we were to say “bring us the head of bin Laden in thirty days or else the economic sanctions go back up”, there’s no telling what the response would be.

If they did bring us UbL’s head on a platter, we might be tempted to re-instate the sanctions already againstthem that we have suspended since we wouldn’t need them anymore.

That’s exactly the problem. What Pakistan wants most is to be able to keep handing us some relatively minor Al Queda operative once every few months to prove that they’re “with us”, while having OBL remain alive. Since American forces cannot work within the boundaries of Pakistan proper, that means that if bin Laden actually has found a secure hiding place on the Pakistan side of the border, he’s relatively safe. With the hunt for bin Laden now a back burner issue, I can’t think of anything other than a major al Queda attack on an American target that would cause America to pressure Pakistan into going after him.

We aren’t ignoring Pakistan we are getting the best possible help we could expect. Many local governments in Pakistan are moving towards the Taliban style of Islamic extremism. Helping America is not popular in many regions of the country and to mantain the central goverments power Musharraf can only do so much. Invading Pakistan is simply not an option becuase they have nukes so there is little we can to do to influence them. If we impose sanctions on them to try to get them to help more it will just drive the population away from the US

The vaguely termed “War on Terrorism” was in existence well before the coming of George II (say from the 1960’s?) and will probably continue for at least another 1 or 2 centuries. Osama Bin Laden, who is very proably dead, is no longer a major factor here except as a ‘Che Lives’ kind of inspiration to his many admirers.

Whether we like it or not, over the next 20-30 years there will probably be at least another one or two dozen countries, some controlled by people who are less than civilised, with nuclear weapons.

Neither the US, nor any other power, is likely to make a serious attempt to take each of them out before this happens, and some of those countries, or factions within them, would be quite happy to provide, on a clandestine basis, one or more compact nuclear devices to some group headed by an Osama MarkII, the original model having, I believe, already joined the Choir Invisible.

You do not even have to smuggle such a device into country to wreak havoc. Setting it off in some vessel with an official registration of convenience (easy to get) a few miles out to sea from a coastal city would cause almost as much devastation as setting it off in a city centre.

I believe that at a US Govt. press briefing about a year ago (I lost the cite, sorry) it was stated that the US Govt. would not wait until it had proof positive before responding. However, in all seriousness, what could really be done if the identity of the perp was not immediately known.

[nitpick] Daniel Pearl, not Richard. (BTW, his family set up a nonprofit foundation in his name to promote cross-cultural understanding. A friend of mine in San Francisco does some of the site maintenance on a pro bono basis. You can check it out at www.danielpearl.org.) [/np]
That said, even if you can attribute the noblest of motives to Musharraf - something of which I’m not terriblly convinced - I sure as hell wouldn’t want his job.

The man behind 9/11, the capture of whom is the *single event *most likely to boost Bush, the head of the still threatening al-Qaeda and on whom the award for information “leading to the . . .” is now $25 million is “on the back burner” ? – that’ll surprise him.
Aug 02, 2003 - e.g. Today
By Jane Mayer, New Yorker

In June, at a joint press conference at Camp David with President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, the President was forced to address the bin Laden question. A reporter asked where bin Laden might be, and Bush’s response was muted and cautious. “If Osama bin Laden is alive . . . slowly but surely we’re dismantling the networks, and we’ll continue on the hunt,” he said. He added that locating bin Laden “could take years.”
<snip>

“Anyone who says that, at this point, getting bin Laden doesn’t matter is, purposefully or not, providing a completely self-serving judgment,” Rand Beers said. “It’s not true. There would be a huge favorable political fallout to finding him. It would reverberate all over the Islamic world. Maybe someday it will matter less, but right now it’s a continuing, nagging question, and a huge political embarrassment.”

The already cited New Yorker article documents how resources have been steadily removed from the hunt for Osama to focus on other issues, meaning Iraq. I wasn’t saying that he’s been forgotten entirely, only that the government and the media are placing far less emphasis on the effort to find him.

Just seconding the thanks to Roger_Mexico for

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/information/siteindex.html

The site is a work in progress but I particularly like the very comprehensive timelines inclusion of multi-sourced media. A very interesting project. Thanks!

Wow! What a cite site! I read thier critique of Colin Powells UN speech. It was like watching a fox being pecked to death by carnivorous chickens.

. . or a Mother-In-Law.