Pakistan: Bin Laden will not face capture if he agrees to lead a "peaceful life"

[jAZ]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/bin_laden_gets_.html

Bin Laden Gets a Pass from Pakistan
September 05, 2006 5:41 PM

Brian Ross and Gretchen Peters Report:

Osama bin Laden, America's most wanted man, will not face capture in Pakistan if he agrees to lead a "peaceful life," Pakistani officials tell ABC News.

The surprising announcement comes as Pakistani army officials announced they were pulling their troops out of the North Waziristan region as part of a "peace deal" with the Taliban.

If he is in Pakistan, bin Laden "would not be taken into custody," Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan told ABC News in a telephone interview, "as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen."

Bin Laden is believed to be hiding somewhere in the tribal areas of Pakistan, near the Afghanistan border, but U.S. officials say his precise location is unknown.

In addition to the pullout of Pakistani troops, the "peace agreement" between Pakistan and the Taliban also provides for the Pakistani army to return captured Taliban weapons and prisoners.

"What this means is that the Taliban and al Qaeda leadership have effectively carved out a sanctuary inside Pakistan," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, the former White House counter-terrorism director.

The agreement was signed on the same day President Bush said the United States was working with its allies "to deny terrorists the enclaves they seek to establish in ungoverned areas across the world."

The Pakistani Army had gone into Waziristan, under heavy pressure from the United States, but faced a series of humiliating defeats at the hands of the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters.

"They're throwing the towel," said Alexis Debat, who is a Senior Fellow at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant. "They're giving al Qaeda and the Taliban a blank check and saying essentially make yourselves at home in the tribal areas," Debat said.

[BucEyedPea]

http://www.pewterconnection.com/html/emoticons/bucguy.gif
Well, shiver me timbers! Our wonderful ally in the WoT.

Bush sure knows who to pick for friends.

http://www.pewterconnection.com/html/emoticons/badteeth.gif
What's wrong with this picture?

[JBucc]

Don't do it Osama, it's a trick!

[penchief]

http://www.pewterconnection.com/html/emoticons/bucguy.gif
Well, shiver me timbers! Our wonderful ally in the WoT.

Bush sure knows who to pick for friends.

http://www.pewterconnection.com/html/emoticons/badteeth.gif
What's wrong with this picture?

Are you demeaning The COTW? Pakistan and Romania are far stanuncher allies than our traditional allies have ever been. Besides, they GET IT, whereas Old Europe obviously doesn't. Who needs a bunch of know-it-all snobs always reminding us that we're screwing up when we can just promise a lot of cool stuff to countries that can be bought?

[Laz]

this has no more meaning than israel accepting a ceasefire with the terrorist of hezbollah.


agree to live a peaceful life???



of course he'll agree to that ....... then he'll go on working behind the scene to do what he wants done.

[dirk digler]

I really can't believe this is true but it is everywhere in the media now so it must be credible.

If this is true this administration really has a huge credibility problem now.

[Joe Seahawk]

It's a fargin trick!

[Loki]

you've gotta be sh*tting me... :shake:

* * *

hmmm... if we promise that our troops currently rolling into northern pakistan will lead a "peaceful life", do you think they'll believe us?

[Pitt Gorilla]

Is Pakistan now with us or 'ginst us?

[Chiefnj]

I'm sure Clinton is behind this. It will be an ABC miniseries next fall.

[banyon]

Well, Bush just doesn't spend that much time thinking about him.

So obviously we should all forget about him too and just focus on Iraq. That's where it's at!

[Brock]

They say it's bs.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/06/pakistan.afghanistan/index.html

[|Zach|]

Is Pakistan now with us or 'ginst us?
ROFL

[Radar Chief]

They say it's bs.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/06/pakistan.afghanistan/index.html

Naw dude, ABC said it so it must be so. ‘Cept for over at this thread where ABC is the RNC shill machine. ;)

http://67.18.68.69/BB/showthread.php?t=146950

[dirk digler]

They say it's bs.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/06/pakistan.afghanistan/index.html

Thanks.

I had a hard time believing it was true but you never know.

[Cochise]

Naw dude, ABC said it so it must be so. ‘Cept for over at this thread where ABC is the RNC shill machine. ;)

http://67.18.68.69/BB/showthread.php?t=146950

ROFL :clap:

[penchief]

Well, Bush just doesn't spend that much time thinking about him.

So obviously we should all forget about him too and just focus on Iraq. That's where it's at!

Unless it's time for an election. Then, of course, bin Laden is the priority. Having him out there as the bogeyman has always been a vital weapon in this administration's propaganda war against it's own people.

Iraq may turn out to be this country's greatest misstep. Making it even more tragic is that it was a war of choice. Now that we are left without choices, who's to blame? If you believe the administration it would be everybody except them. They've linked dissenters, political opponents, and the media to terrorism by suggesting that opposing their policies and conduct is the equivalent aiding and abetting the enemy. Meanwhile, the truth is that their own conduct has been the biggest boon that any of our enemies could ever have hoped for. Anti-American sentiment and terrorist recruitment are at all time highs.

What a frickin' debacle. And now comes their great public relations push designed to scare us sheep into voting for them again. God help us.

[Radar Chief]

Unless it's time for an election. Then, of course, bin Laden is the priority. Having him out there as the bogeyman has always been a vital weapon in this administration's propaganda war against it's own people.

Iraq may turn out to be this country's greatest misstep. Making it even more tragic is that it was a war of choice. Now that we are left without choices, who's to blame? If you believe the administration it would be everybody except them. They've linked dissenters, political opponents, and the media to terrorism by suggesting that opposing their policies and conduct is the equivalent aiding and abetting the enemy. Meanwhile, the truth is that their own conduct has been the biggest boon that any of our enemies could ever have hoped for. Anti-American sentiment and terrorist recruitment are at all time highs.

What a frickin' debacle. And now comes their great public relations push designed to scare us sheep into voting for them again. God help us.

ROFL You kill me Penchief. Go from complain’n ‘bout “scare tactics” in your first paragraph to using them in your second and back to complain’n ‘bout the exact same thing again in the third. If I wasn’t so used to it I’d be amazed by the seamless flow of hypocrisy. :thumb:

[stevieray]

ROFL You kill me Penchief. Go from complain’n ‘bout “scare tactics” in your first paragraph to using them in your second and back to complain’n ‘bout the exact same thing again in the third. If I wasn’t so used to it I’d be amazed by the seamless flow of hypocrisy. :thumb:

exactly why I put him on ignore.

dude is a quaalude.

[memyselfI]

ROFL

With friends like the Pakistanis and Saudis, who needs enemies. ROFL ROFL

[jAZ]

Seems like everyone in that article expressly supports this statement... "... foreigners settled in the area would be allowed to stay there on the condition that they live peacefully and abide by law... ".

I wonder if Bin Laden is considered a "foreigner"?

[Hog Farmer]

It's all moot because soon Musharraf will be assasinated and the extremist will have their hand on 500 nuclear missles and they'll be elbowing each other out of the way to see who can light the fuse first.

[penchief]

exactly why I put him on ignore.

dude is a quaalude.

You've got me on ignore? Heh. It's probably because your tired of being pressed for substance when you all you want to do is take cheap shots or make insinuations in the form of inapt one-liners.

[patteeu]

Explain to me how pointing out the real consequences of this administration's ineptness is equivalent to their use of scare tactics every time an election is coming down the pike. Show me specifically what you are referring to. The fact that they've tried to marginalize those who disagree or question? It's a fact. The fact that they blame everybody but themselves? It's been a strict pattern. The fact that terrorist recruitment is up? The fact that more people and nations in this world distrust us than ever before? That's self-evident.

Which part is scare tactics? Which part do you disagree with? Do you think this administration uses scare tactics at election time or not? Has this administration tried to link Iraq to 9/11 or not? Has Bush's interest in bin Laden been hot and cold depending on the political environment?

Do you believe that concerned and patriotic citizens are correct to point out the failures and the poor conduct of an American policy?

When was the last time you blamed yourself and like minded-people for our national security issues? Just curious.

[penchief]

When was the last time you blamed yourself and like minded-people for our national security issues? Just curious.

How is it my fault? Just curious.

Is it your fault, too? Just curious.

[penchief]

ROFL You kill me Penchief. Go from complain’n ‘bout “scare tactics” in your first paragraph to using them in your second and back to complain’n ‘bout the exact same thing again in the third. If I wasn’t so used to it I’d be amazed by the seamless flow of hypocrisy. :thumb:

Explain to me how pointing out the real consequences of this administration's ineptness is equivalent to their use of scare tactics every time an election is coming down the pike. Show me specifically what you are referring to. The fact that they've tried to marginalize those who disagree or question? It's a fact. The fact that they blame everybody but themselves? It's been a strict pattern. The fact that terrorist recruitment is up? The fact that more people and nations in this world distrust us than ever before? That's self-evident.

Which part is scare tactics? Which part do you disagree with? Do you think this administration uses scare tactics at election time or not? Has this administration tried to link Iraq to 9/11 or not? Has Bush's interest in bin Laden been hot and cold depending on the political environment?

Do you believe that concerned and patriotic citizens are correct to point out the failures and the poor conduct of American policy?

[patteeu]

How is it my fault? Just curious.

Is it your fault, too? Just curious.

You said that the Bush administration blames everybody but themselves. I see you blame a lot on others, but I never see you taking any of the blame yourself. I'm just wondering if you are any better than the concerned and patriotic citizens in the Bush administration are.

[penchief]

You said that the Bush administration blames everybody but themselves. I see you blame a lot on others, but I never see you taking any of the blame yourself. I'm just wondering if you are any better than the concerned and patriotic citizens in the Bush administration are.

Actually, I have an over-developed sense of guilt. I'm way too hard on myself when I screw up. I feel horrible when I do something that causes others trouble or inconvenience. I usually end up apologizing more than is necessary. And I usually go out of my way to make up for any problems I've caused.

Hey, that's just me. But I'm not sure how that's relevant to this administration ramming their agenda down our throats, and then once it turned into a debacle for America, pointing the finger at everybody else who advocated a more practical less ideological approach from the start.

At what point are you willing to hold this administration accountable?

[Baby Lee]

Seems like everyone in that article expressly supports this statement... "... foreigners settled in the area would be allowed to stay there on the condition that they live peacefully and abide by law... ".

I wonder if Bin Laden is considered a "foreigner"?
There's 'spin,' then there's 'lack of reading comprehension.'

The statement clearly indicates that foreigners will not be ousted FOR BEING FOREIGNERS if they live peacefully and abide the law.

[patteeu]

Actually, I have an over-developed sense of guilt. I'm way too hard on myself when I screw up. I feel horrible when I do something that causes others trouble or inconvenience. I usually end up apologizing more than is necessary. And I usually go out of my way to make up for any problems I've caused.

Hey, that's just me. But I'm not sure how that's relevant to this administration ramming their agenda down our throats, and then once it turned into a debacle for America, pointing the finger at everybody else who advocated a more practical less ideological approach from the start.

At what point are you willing to hold this administration accountable?

I think they should probably be more willing to increase the number of troops in Iraq. I think they gave up too easily on the UAE ports deal. I think they took way too long to start naming our enemy with something more specific (e.g. "Islamic fascists") than a generic term (e.g. "terrorists"). I think they pressured Israel to cave in too quickly to international pressure for a cease fire in Lebanon. But I'm not so arrogant that I won't allow for the possibility that there were good reasons for some of these things of which I'm unaware. For example, maybe Israel was unwilling to do what it took to achieve total victory over Hezbollah regardless of how willing the US was to keep the pressure off of them. If that were the case, I can't fault them for making the best out of a less than optimal situation.

I'm not really asking you whether you blame yourself for personal issues, I was asking if you ever consider the possibility that people who take the positions you take here on ChiefsPlanet might be responsible for some of the bitter partisan climate we find ourselves in or do you ever have half a thought that you might be a part of the problem when you see the bin Ladens, the Ahmadinejads and the Nasrallahs of the world parroting the same talking points you embrace?

[banyon]

When was the last time you blamed yourself and like minded-people for our national security issues? Just curious.

Blame implies control. I am not aware that penchief has national security authority.

[penchief]

I think they should probably be more willing to increase the number of troops in Iraq. I think they gave up too easily on the UAE ports deal. I think they took way too long to start naming our enemy with something more specific (e.g. "Islamic fascists") than a generic term (e.g. "terrorists"). I think they pressured Israel to cave in too quickly to international pressure for a cease fire in Lebanon. But I'm not so arrogant that I won't allow for the possibility that there were good reasons for some of these things of which I'm unaware. For example, maybe Israel was unwilling to do what it took to achieve total victory over Hezbollah regardless of how willing the US was to keep the pressure off of them. If that were the case, I can't fault them for making the best out of a less than optimal situation.

I'm not really asking you whether you blame yourself for personal issues, I was asking if you ever consider the possibility that people who take the positions you take here on ChiefsPlanet might be responsible for some of the bitter partisan climate we find ourselves in or do you ever have half a thought that you might be a part of the problem when you see the bin Ladens, the Ahmadinejads and the Nasrallahs of the world parroting the same talking points you embrace?

I don't think you can accuse me of parroting anyone. I've been slightly ahead of the curve when it comes to talking points. And I knew you weren't asking me to blame myself for personal issues but you were asking me to entertain the possibility that Bush's fascist instincts are correct when it comes to like-minded people who disagree with him. Can't have those pesky citizens having any say in the direction that their government takes the country. An election isn't a free pass to do whatever he wants. He still work for us.

[Ugly Duck]

I'm just wondering if you are any better than the concerned and patriotic citizens in the Bush administration are.Bush may be patriotoc, but he ain't that concerned about Bin Laden:

"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... We haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

—Bush, answering a question about Osama bin Laden at a March 13, 2002 news conference.

http://www.thetruthaboutgeorge.com/bushisms/index.html

[Ugly Duck]

Hey... the Pakistani military promising to stay out of Bin Laden's province will be just peachy for Afghanistan, dontcha think? Gives the Taliban a nice safe haven to conduct attacks from. Whatever happened to "Countries that harbor terrorists are just as guilty as the terrorists?" Pakastani polls show 65% popular support for Bin Laden. This in a country with nook-you-ler weapons. Too bad we're bogged down in Iraqmire to fight the WOT. We gotta get these bumbling, bungling neocons out of office so we can get down to business....

[Radar Chief]

Explain to me how pointing out the real consequences of this administration's ineptness is equivalent to their use of scare tactics every time an election is coming down the pike. Show me specifically what you are referring to. The fact that they've tried to marginalize those who disagree or question? It's a fact. The fact that they blame everybody but themselves? It's been a strict pattern. The fact that terrorist recruitment is up? The fact that more people and nations in this world distrust us than ever before? That's self-evident.

Which part is scare tactics? Which part do you disagree with? Do you think this administration uses scare tactics at election time or not? Has this administration tried to link Iraq to 9/11 or not? Has Bush's interest in bin Laden been hot and cold depending on the political environment?

Do you believe that concerned and patriotic citizens are correct to point out the failures and the poor conduct of American policy?

Why should I bother? It’s not like we haven’t been down this road before, Penchief. And it isn’t like you’ll suddenly look in a mirror and recognize that you use the exact same “marginalization”, “over generalizing” and “scare tactics” you claim to abhor.
Were you as introspective as you claim to be you would look at what you just posted and see it for yourself.

[penchief]

Why should I bother? It’s not like we haven’t been down this road before, Penchief. And it isn’t like you’ll suddenly look in a mirror and recognize that you use the exact same “marginalization”, “over generalizing” and “scare tactics” you claim to abhor.
Were you as introspective as you claim to be you would look at what you just posted and see it for yourself.

If you're going to say something you gotta back it up. Point to those things specifically that you think are scare tactics by me. Obviously, you must disagree with my statements or you wouldn't call them scare tactics. Specifically, what do you disagree with?

I think when people play the "irony" card or the "hypocrite" card they should be able to point to what evidence they see. Now, I'm not claiming to never be hypocritical because I know I can be and have been at times in the past. But, so has pretty much everybody. However, in the statement you quoted I would like to know what you are referring to, specifically.

[patteeu]

If you're going to say something you gotta back it up. Point to those things specifically that you think are scare tactics by me. Obviously, you must disagree with my statements or you wouldn't call them scare tactics. Specifically, what do you disagree with?

I think when people play the "irony" card or the "hypocrite" card they should be able to point to what evidence they see. Now, I'm not claiming to never be hypocritical because I know I can be and have been at times in the past. But, so has pretty much everybody. However, in the statement you quoted I would like to know what you are referring to, specifically.

OK, what's the difference between this:

[The Bush administration has] linked dissenters, political opponents, and the media to terrorism by suggesting that opposing their policies and conduct is the equivalent aiding and abetting the enemy.

and this:

[T]he truth is that [the Bush administration's] own conduct has been the biggest boon that any of our enemies could ever have hoped for.

You level a criticism and then you turn right around and do the same thing.

And as for scare tactics, what would you call this:

What a frickin' debacle. And now comes their great public relations push designed to scare us sheep into voting for them again. God help us.

The only difference between what the Bush administration is doing and what you do is that they are pointing to a terrorist threat (which is undeniably real) and you are pointing to our own government as the threat (which is, IMO, delusional).

[banyon]

OK, what's the difference between this:



and this:



You level a criticism and then you turn right around and do the same thing.

The 1st statement appears to be a charge against the Bush Administration for their tendency to attempt to stifle dissent (i.e., attacking free speech).

The 2nd statement is a consequential statement about the effects of the policy, but penchief, unlike the Bushies is not attempting to stifle your dissent with his position.

[patteeu]

The 1st statement appears to be a charge against the Bush Administration for their tendency to attempt to stifle dissent (i.e., attacking free speech).

The 2nd statement is a consequential statement about the effects of the policy, but penchief, unlike the Bushies is not attempting to stifle your dissent with his position.

I'd say that the 2nd statement is an attempt (to the extent that anyone on a football message board can make such an attempt) to stifle the Bush administration's conduct by contributing to the resonation of the "Bush policies feed terrorism" message, just like Bush is trying to stop careless dissenters from feeding terrorism with their "America should try appeasement or in some other way unilaterally surrender" message.

[penchief]

You level a criticism and then you turn right around and do the same thing.

What I'm doing is pointing out THEIR hypocricy. How shameless can they be when the problems that we are now facing in Iraq are a direct result of their poor performance and not those who warned them or questioned their questionable policies and conduct. It IS a scare tactic when everytime they need a diversion or need to score political points they raise the threat level. It is not a scare tactic to point that out.


The only difference between what the Bush administration is doing and what you do is that they are pointing to a terrorist threat (which is undeniably real) and you are pointing to our own government as the threat (which is, IMO, delusional).

They point to the terrorist threat as their reason for everything they do. Even things which have nothing to do with terrorism. Even things that go against the people's wishes or what our country stands for. I'm simply pointing to their exploitation of that terrorist threat for political gain.

That's a big difference, IMO. They're actually manipulating us with the terrorist threat while all I'm doing is pointing that out. If their behavior is so reliable that it can be counted on, such as their manipulation of the terrorist threat for political gain, then it is a pattern that justifies scrutiny.

And this administration has earned every bit of scrutiny it is getting, and then some. I'd feel a lot better if they weren't manipulators. I wish I could trust them. But they defiantly screwed the pooch and told everybody else to go to hell along they way. They've been dishonest and secretive about it the whole time and they still have the nerve to point the finger at everybody else but themselves.

AND they keep on pandering to fear because that's all they've got left.

[Brock]

That's a big difference, IMO. They're actually manipulating us with the terrorist threat while all I'm doing is pointing that out. If their behavior is so reliable that it can be counted on, such as their manipulation of the terrorist threat for political gain, then it is a pattern that justifies scrutiny.

Give it a rest. There are probably 5 people, including you, who actually pay attention to what the "threat level" is set at. You should be astute enough to be aware that elections are about people's wallets and nothing more.

[penchief]

Give it a rest. There are probably 5 people, including you, who actually pay attention to what the "threat level" is set at. You should be astute enough to be aware that elections are about people's wallets and nothing more.

It's not just the "threat level." It's the consistent pattern of beating the drums every time there's an election on the horizon or when they need to pass unpopular legislation. Too bad lip service doesn't translate into border security, port security, protecting our infrastructure, or pursuing those who attacked us 9/11.

[patteeu]

What I'm doing is pointing out THEIR hypocricy. How shameless can they be when the problems that we are now facing in Iraq are a direct result of their poor performance and not those who warned them or questioned their questionable policies and conduct. It IS a scare tactic when everytime they need a diversion or need to score political points they raise the threat level. It is not a scare tactic to point that out.




They point to the terrorist threat as their reason for everything they do. Even things which have nothing to do with terrorism. Even things that go against the people's wishes or what our country stands for. I'm simply pointing to their exploitation of that terrorist threat for political gain.

That's a big difference, IMO. They're actually manipulating us with the terrorist threat while all I'm doing is pointing that out. If their behavior is so reliable that it can be counted on, such as their manipulation of the terrorist threat for political gain, then it is a pattern that justifies scrutiny.

And this administration has earned every bit of scrutiny it is getting, and then some. I'd feel a lot better if they weren't manipulators. I wish I could trust them. But they defiantly screwed the pooch and told everybody else to go to hell along they way. They've been dishonest and secretive about it the whole time and they still have the nerve to point the finger at everybody else but themselves.

AND they keep on pandering to fear because that's all they've got left.


:LOL: This is why Radar Chief said:

Why should I bother? It’s not like we haven’t been down this road before, Penchief. And it isn’t like you’ll suddenly look in a mirror and recognize that you use the exact same “marginalization”, “over generalizing” and “scare tactics” you claim to abhor.
Were you as introspective as you claim to be you would look at what you just posted and see it for yourself.

It only seems like a scare tactic to you because you believe they are wrong, dishonest, or deceitful. Imagine for a minute that they actually believe in what they are doing just like you believe in what you are doing but that they see rhetoric like yours as wrong, dishonest, or deceitful. If you are able to get out of your own head for a minute and empathize with the way others think, you'll be able to see the similarity between what you do and what you claim they do. I don't hold out much hope for you to suddenly gain the ability to look at this objectively though.

[penchief]

:LOL: This is why Radar Chief said:



It only seems like a scare tactic to you because you believe they are wrong, dishonest, or deceitful. Imagine for a minute that they actually believe in what they are doing just like you believe in what you are doing but that they see rhetoric like yours as wrong, dishonest, or deceitful. If you are able to get out of your own head for a minute and empathize with the way others think, you'll be able to see the similarity between what you do and what you claim they do. I don't hold out much hope for you to suddenly gain the ability to look at this objectively though.

That would be okay if you were willing to ignore the sequence of events along the way. You seem willing to do that but I'm not. Because of that, I believe you are as unobjective as you believe I am. I'm amazed with how routinely you gloss over the bottom line or ignore the cumulative affects of this administration's own conduct on the level of criticism directed toward them. You seem unwilling to recognize an intent with any of their behavior, let alone, a pattern of intent.

[Radar Chief]

That would be okay if you were willing to ignore the sequence of events along the way. You seem willing to do that but I'm not. Because of that, I believe you are as unobjective as you believe I am. I'm amazed with how routinely you gloss over the bottom line or ignore the cumulative affects of this administration's own conduct on the level of criticism directed toward them. You seem unwilling to recognize an intent with any of their behavior, let alone, a pattern of intent.

You mean your projected “intent”? Silly us, why didn’t we realize the purity of your intent or wisdom of your rhetoric parroting? ROFL
Though, this was a funny deflection. :thumb:

[Radar Chief]

:LOL: This is why Radar Chief said:



It only seems like a scare tactic to you because you believe they are wrong, dishonest, or deceitful. Imagine for a minute that they actually believe in what they are doing just like you believe in what you are doing but that they see rhetoric like yours as wrong, dishonest, or deceitful. If you are able to get out of your own head for a minute and empathize with the way others think, you'll be able to see the similarity between what you do and what you claim they do. I don't hold out much hope for you to suddenly gain the ability to look at this objectively though.

Learned this one long ago, Pat.
You can’t even show'im his hypocrisy in’is own words without his response be’n some sort of deflection like, “yea, but Bush-co-Cheney-burton id teh Debil”.
I admire your effort though. :thumb:

[stevieray]

Learned this one long ago, Pat.
You can’t even show'im his hypocrisy in’is own words without his response be’n some sort of deflection like, “yea, but Bush-co-Cheney-burton id teh Debil”.
I admire your effort though. :thumb:

number 9...number 9...number 9...

[jAZ]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HI08Df03.html

Pakistan: Hello al-Qaeda, goodbye America
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
South Asia
Sep 8, 2006

MIRANSHAH, North Waziristan - With a truce between the Pakistani Taliban and Islamabad now in place, the Pakistani government is in effect reverting to its pre-September 11, 2001, position in which it closed its eyes to militant groups allied with al-Qaeda and clearly sided with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

While the truce has generated much attention, a more significant development is an underhand deal between pro-al-Qaeda elements and Pakistan in which key al-Qaeda figures will either not be arrested or those already in custody will be set free. This has the potential to sour Islamabad's relations with Washington beyond the point of no return.

On Tuesday, Pakistan agreed to withdraw its forces from the restive Waziristan tribal areas bordering Afghanistan in return for a pledge from tribal leaders to stop attacks by Pakistani Taliban across the border.

Most reports said that the stumbling block toward signing this truce had been the release of tribals from Pakistani custody. But most tribals had already been released.

The main problem - and one that has been unreported - was to keep Pakistan authorities' hands off members of banned militant organizations connected with al-Qaeda.

Thus, for example, it has now been agreed between militants and Islamabad that Pakistan will not arrest two high-profile men on the "most wanted" list that includes Osama bin Laden, his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri and Taliban leader Mullah Omar.

Saud Memon and Ibrahim Choto are the only Pakistanis on this list, and they will be left alone. Saud Memon was the owner of the lot where US journalist Daniel Pearl was tortured, executed and buried in January 2002 in Karachi after being kidnapped by jihadis.
Pakistan has also agreed that many people arrested by law-enforcement agencies in Pakistan will be released from jail.

Importantly, this includes Ghulam Mustafa, who was detained by Pakistani authorities late last year. Mustafa is reckoned as al-Qaeda's chief in Pakistan. (See Al-Qaeda's man who knows too much, Asia Times Online, January 5. As predicted in that article, Mustafa did indeed disappear into a "black hole" and was never formally charged, let alone handed over to the US.)

Asia Times Online contacts expect Mustafa to be released in the next few days. He was once close to bin Laden and has intimate knowledge of al-Qaeda's logistics, its financing and its nexus with the military in Pakistan.

Militants at large
"Now they [Pakistani authorities] have accepted us as true representatives of the mujahideen," Wazir Khan told Asia Times Online at a religious congregation in Miranshah. "Now we are no longer criminals, but part and parcel of every deal. Even the authorities have given tacit approval that they would not have any objections if I and other fellows who were termed as wanted took part in negotiations."

Wazir Khan was once a high-profile go-between for bin Laden and one of his closest Waziristan contacts. He was right up there on the "wanted" list. Now he can move around in the open. "The situation is diametrically changed," he said.

From a personal point of view, things have changed for Wazir Khan and others like him, but in the bigger picture things have also changed diametrically.

Pakistan, the leading light in the United States' "war on terror" and a "most important" non-North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally, is returning to the heady times of before September 11 when it could dabble without restraint in regional affairs, and this at a time when Afghanistan is boiling.

"The post-September 11 situation [in Pakistan] was draconian," a prominent militant told Asia Times Online on condition of anonymity. "All jihadi organizations were informed in advance how they would be [severely] dealt with in the future and that they had better carve out an alternative low-profile strategy. But some people could not stop themselves from unnecessary adventures and created problems for the establishment. This gave the US the chance to intervene in Pakistan, and over 700 al-Qaeda mujahideen were arrested.

"Now the situation changed again ... we know the state of Pakistan is important for the Pakistan army, but certainly we know that the army would never completely compromise on Islam."

The truce between Islamabad and the Pakistani Taliban in Waziristan has been a bitter pill for Washington to swallow, although Pakistan's pledge to allow foreign troops based in Afghanistan hot pursuit into a limited area in Pakistan softens the blow a bit.

Islamabad's overriding concern, though, is to earn some breathing space domestically, as well as get Uncle Sam off its back.

The situation in Waziristan was becoming unmanageable - it's already virtually a separate state - and trouble is ongoing in restive Balochistan province, especially since the killing at the hands of Pakistani security forces of nationalist leader Nawab Akbar Bugti. Fractious opposition political parties have shown rare unity in attacking the government of President General Pervez Musharraf on the issue.

Redrawing the map
An article by retired US Major Ralph Peters titled "Blood borders" published in the Armed Forces Journal last month has given Pakistan some food for thought over manipulating the geopolitical game on its own terms and conditions.

Peters, formerly assigned to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, where he was responsible for future warfare, argues that borders in the Middle East and Africa are "the most arbitrary and distorted" in the world and need restructuring.

Four countries - Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Turkey - are singled out for major readjustments. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are also defined as "unnatural states".

Though the US State Department was quick to deny that such ideas had anything to do with US policymaking, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey read much between the lines of talk of restructuring their boundaries.

Among Peters' proposals was the need to establish "an independent Kurdish state" that would "stretch from Diyarbakir [eastern Turkey] through Tabriz [Iran], which would be the most pro-Western state between Bulgaria and Japan".

Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz recently visited Turkey and then Lebanon, where he announced that his country would not send any peacekeeping troops to the latter. Ankara then said that if peacekeeping forces tried to disarm Hezbollah, Turkey would pull out of the peace mission. These decisions are the result of back-channel diplomacy among Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan.

Across Pakistan's border in Afghanistan, the Taliban have control of most of the southwest of the country, from where Mullah Omar is expected soon to announce the revival of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan - the name of the country before the Taliban were driven out in 2001. Once the proclamation is made, a big push toward the capital Kabul will begin.

The sounds of jail doors opening in Pakistan will jar with the United States, as will Islamabad adopting a more independent foreign policy and, crucially, aligning itself with the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, which once again could become a Pakistani playground.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com.

(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing .)

[penchief]

Learned this one long ago, Pat.
You can’t even show'im his hypocrisy in’is own words without his response be’n some sort of deflection like, “yea, but Bush-co-Cheney-burton id teh Debil”.
I admire your effort though. :thumb:

And I learned a long time ago that it's much easier for you to just say that I'm being hypocritical than actually refute my points.

I've confessed to being hypocritical at times. More than once. But you don't seem to be willing to provide the specifics that I'm asking for related directly to the post in which you accuse me of hypocricy. I'm still not convinced. You guys like to talk amongst yourselves how I'm hypocritical but every time I ask you to show me why you think so you just keep on about how I'll never see it or you don't expect me to be objective. Well, I don't call making vague references to hypocricy or playing the irony card a good enough answer.

And if I don't agree with your analysis that doesn't necessarily prove your point. I'm open to being convinced. But up until this point you haven't been very convincing. More than anything, I'd like you to convince me that I'm wrong about this administration. You're not doing a very good job of that either. If you were, you wouldn't always have to resort to making the debate about me instead of my points.

[Baby Lee]

I've confessed to being hypocritical at times. More than once. But you don't seem to be willing to provide the specifics that I'm asking for related directly to the post in which you accuse me of hypocricy. I'm still not convinced.
You complain that Bush supporters try and characterize your dissent as helping the enemy.
Then you state that the course of action they support helps the enemy.

As clear as I can lay it out.

[patteeu]

And I learned a long time ago that it's much easier for you to just say that I'm being hypocritical than actually refute my points.

I've confessed to being hypocritical at times. More than once. But you don't seem to be willing to provide the specifics that I'm asking for related directly to the post in which you accuse me of hypocricy. I'm still not convinced. You guys like to talk amongst yourselves how I'm hypocritical but every time I ask you to show me why you think so you just keep on about how I'll never see it or you don't expect me to be objective. Well, I don't call making vague references to hypocricy or playing the irony card a good enough answer.

And if I don't agree with your analysis that doesn't necessarily prove your point. I'm open to being convinced. But up until this point you haven't been very convincing. More than anything, I'd like you to convince me that I'm wrong about this administration. You're not doing a very good job of that either. If you were, you wouldn't always have to resort to making the debate about me instead of my points.

I'm reminded of Monte Python's Black Knight

http://www.blogwaybaby.com/Black%20Knight,%20No%20Arm.jpg

[patteeu]

You complain that Bush supporters try and characterize your dissent as helping the enemy.
Then you state that the course of action they support helps the enemy.

As clear as I can lay it out.

Perfectly pithy!

[penchief]

You complain that Bush supporters try and characterize your dissent as helping the enemy.
Then you state that the course of action they support helps the enemy.

As clear as I can lay it out.

What I basically said was, how dare they blame others when the buck stops with them. Our predicament is the direct result of their bad policy and NOT those who questioned their bad policy. It is their fault because they are the ones that made the choices.

I don't know how much simpler I can put it. Apparently you don't believe in accountability or responsibility. I guess we Americans are not supposed to point out the obvious if it involves casting our leaders in a bad light.

[Radar Chief]

And if I don't agree with your analysis that doesn't necessarily prove your point. I'm open to being convinced. But up until this point you haven't been very convincing. More than anything, I'd like you to convince me that I'm wrong about this administration. You're not doing a very good job of that either. If you were, you wouldn't always have to resort to making the debate about me instead of my points.

Ah, but that’s the just it, Penchief. It has nothing to do with “this administration” and everything to do with your post’n style, if you can call bitch’n & deflection a “style”.

[Radar Chief]

What I basically said was, how dare they blame others when the buck stops with them. Our predicament is the direct result of their bad policy and NOT those who questioned their bad policy. It is their fault because they are the ones that made the choices.

I don't know how much simpler I can put it. Apparently you don't believe in accountability or responsibility. I guess we Americans are not supposed to point out the obvious if it involves casting our leaders in a bad light.

ROFL And there ya go. BL just laid out exactly what we’ve been talk’n ‘bout and you revert back to your “Bush-co-Cheney-burton-non-buck-stop’n” base rhetoric.
I suppose it’s teh Debil’s fault your hypocritical then? Is that what we’re supposed to take from this? Are you always just the hapless victim of grant conspiracies? ROFL

[penchief]

ROFL And there ya go. BL just laid out exactly what we’ve been talk’n ‘bout and you revert back to your “Bush-co-Cheney-burton-non-buck-stop’n” base rhetoric.
I suppose it’s teh Debil’s fault your hypocritical then? Is that what we’re supposed to take from this? Are you always just the hapless victim of grant conspiracies? ROFL

Nope, you keep playing the same game. EXPLAIN to me how it's hypocritical to claim that failed outcomes are the result of failed policies and not the result of those who have no power to influence those policies. On this one, the buck stops with the president.

I'm not playing the victim and I'm not advocating a conspiracy. I'm only pointing out that which should be painfully obvious to you by now. Who's really being hypocritical here?

[stevieray]

Ah, but that’s the just it, Penchief. It has nothing to do with “this administration” and everything to do with your post’n style, if you can call bitch’n & deflection a “style”.

number 9...number 9...number 9...

[patteeu]

Nope, you keep playing the same game. EXPLAIN to me how it's hypocritical to claim that failed outcomes are the result of failed policies and not the result of those who have no power to influence those policies. On this one, the buck stops with the president.

I'm not playing the victim and I'm not advocating a conspiracy. I'm only pointing out that which should be painfully obvious to you by now. Who's really being hypocritical here?

I think we established that several posts ago. You.

This post smacks of the same kind of logic that's used by those who say that a black man can't be racist because the white man has all the power.

You orginally complained about Bush's criticsm of people like you who dissent. Is that the "policy" that you're talking about now or are you deflecting and trying to change the subject like Radar said?

[penchief]

I think we established that several posts ago. You.

This post smacks of the same kind of logic that's used by those who say that a black man can't be racist because the white man has all the power.

You orginally complained about Bush's criticsm of people like you who dissent. Is that the "policy" that you're talking about now or are you deflecting and trying to change the subject like Radar said?

The policy is their Iraq policy. The hypocricy is their hypocricy. For them to continually accuse those who have differed along the way as aiding the enemy is dishonorable when it has been their own failure in Iraq (and now more and more in Afghanistan) that has contributed most to the worsening situation and the rising spirits of the Iran, al-Qaeda, and our growing number of enemies.

Besides it's not the criticism that is so distasteful, it's the accusation they're making. And it's one that they've always tried to level against anyone that has questioned them the entire way. Criticism is one thing (acceptable); character attacks based on differences of opinion are completely something else (totally unacceptable).

IMO, it's counterproductive for the President of the United States and his cabinet to engage in such shoddy behavior. As the leader of the free world I think it is a direct reflection on his own character and the character of the administration that they do so. It's unacceptable to me and I find it discouraging that there are so many people who defend it.

[jAZ]

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003685.php

Today's Must Read
By Spencer Ackerman - July 16, 2007, 9:15 AM
What used to be a blunder is now a disaster. Pakistani jihadists killed dozens of people in Waziristan and declared war on General Pervez Musharraf's government, abrogating a foolhardy truce they signed with Musharraf last year that gave them time and breathing space to regroup.

In September 2006, Musharraf, president of Pakistan, made an enormous mistake. Seeking to end a bloody and politically troublesome conflict with al-Qaeda-linked jihadists in the tribal province of Waziristan, Musharraf and several militant leaders negotiated a truce. The terms were fairly simple: If Musharraf withdrew his army from the province, the jihadists would expel "foreigners" -- meaning al-Qaeda -- cease provocations against the government, and prevent cross-border exfiltration of militants into neighboring Afghanistan.

From the beginning, the truce looked like capitulation. NATO, U.S. and Afghan officials reported serious increases in militant activity coming from Pakistan. Extremists, sensing Musharraf's weakness, upped their calls for Musharraf's overthrow, resulting in the Red Mosque showdown that finally ended last week. And U.S. intelligence officials began detecting movements of cash and personnel into Waziristan from jihadists in the Middle East -- and particularly from Iraq -- giving credence to the speculation that Osama bin Laden is using his new Waziristan safe haven to reestablish control over his terrorist network.

Largely in response to Musharraf's crackdown on Islamabad's radical Red Mosque, Waziristan jihadis planted a suicide bomber in a police station to kill recruits as they took an entrance exam, targeted an Army convoy with gunmen and roadside bombs, and launched attacks throughout the province. The body count has yet to stabilize. Musharraf is moving thousands of troops in Waziristan that were previously confined to their barracks toward the Afghan border, but, reports Tom Lasseter for McClatchy, "it is not clear, though, whether the build-up is for a large scale operation or simply to add enough troops to maintain stability."

For diametrically opposing reasons, jihadists and secularists want Musharraf gone. (The secularists, of course, don't want to kill him.) How he responds to the collapse of the Waziristan truce will go a long way in determining whether he holds on to power -- and, more importantly, whether al-Qaeda holds on to its latest base of operations.

UPDATE: AFP reports that Pakistani officials are in talks with Waziristan tribal leaders to see if the truce can be restored. Whether this is last-minute diplomacy before an assault or an attempt to return to the pre-attack status quo is as yet unclear.

[Cochise]

ssddd

[go bowe]

you've gotta be sh*tting me... :shake:

* * *

hmmm... if we promise that our troops currently rolling into northern pakistan will lead a "peaceful life", do you think they'll believe us?of course they would...

just peaceful enough to capture the prick...

i can't believe that 140,000 troops couldn't seal the border and launch covert operations against aq and their taliban friends in pakistan...

that's where bin laden is, that's where we should be chasing his ass...

[go bowe]

exactly why I put him on ignore.

dude is a quaalude.quaalude?

sounds kinda kinky to me... :p :p :p

[HolmeZz]

Is Pakistan now with us or 'ginst us?

Clearly they again us.