PDA

View Full Version : Obama Pakistani PM to Warn Obama They Will Attack U.S. Forces


HonestChieffan
05-09-2011, 09:19 AM
There should be no hesitation.

First stop all $$$. Every dime.

Second get the PM to go on the record in writing that his troops will be an enemy combatant if the US crossed the border. That way we have no after action issues with they saying they were friendlies...either you are or you are not. Lets get it clear now.

Third, let them know if in the prosecution of this anti terrorist effort it becomes necessary to go into pakistan, we will. In light of these changes, we will not inform you and will not see you or your country as an ally in this effort.


(Telegraph) — Pakistan’s prime minister will on Monday warn the United States it will defend its air space if American forces mount another raid on terrorists suspected of hiding inside the country.

Yusuf Raza Gilani will seek to restore some dignity in an address to the nation after the humiliation caused when American forces killed Osama bin Laden at a compound close to Pakistan’s main military academy in Abbottabad last week without alerting Pakistan.

A senior government source close to the prime minister said while Mr Gilani will take an aggressive stand to shore up the government’s position.

The source said: “The Prime Minister will say that the United States should not have bypassed Pakistan. We have made a huge contribution in fighting terrorism. We’ve arrested close to 100 al-Qaeda people, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

“We’ll take appropriate action if any further violation takes place. We will defend our air space by any means we have.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8501266/Pakistan-Prime-Minister-to-warn-US-over-Osama-bin-Laden-raid.html

Direckshun
05-09-2011, 09:25 AM
Nice distorted headline there.

Donger
05-09-2011, 09:29 AM
Nice distorted headline there.

:spock:

Pakistan's prime minister will on Monday warn the United States it will defend its air space if American forces mount another raid on terrorists suspected of hiding inside the country.

HonestChieffan
05-09-2011, 09:31 AM
Nice distorted headline there.

Stay focused on the headlines.

Direckshun
05-09-2011, 09:31 AM
:spock:

Pakistan's prime minister will on Monday warn the United States it will defend its air space if American forces mount another raid on terrorists suspected of hiding inside the country.

"Will attack" vs. "will attack if specific trespassing occurs."

Extra Point
05-09-2011, 09:35 AM
Sacred cow already out of barn. Nothing new here.

Jaric
05-09-2011, 09:36 AM
That's cute of them to think they'd have a chance against our airforce.

dirk digler
05-09-2011, 09:37 AM
Good luck with that.

They just did a few drone attacks yesterday.

Cave Johnson
05-09-2011, 09:41 AM
a) That headline's not disingenuous at all, and

b) Repost.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=244806

Donger
05-09-2011, 09:44 AM
"Will attack" vs. "will attack if specific trespassing occurs."

I don't think anyone believes that Pakistan will just randomly attack us.

ROYC75
05-09-2011, 10:26 AM
Nice distorted headline there.

Is the cup half full or half empty ? Can you spin this one ?

May any liberal please spin this one ?

Obviously, will attack and will defend is the same if one is within their air space ? No ?

With this in mind, Pakistan is speaking tough because they have already looke d weak, what else are they to do. Their people are mad, the government has egg on it's face in fear of an investigation that will mostly show that somebody within their government had something to do with hiding OBL.

Bark little dogie, BARK!

ROYC75
05-09-2011, 10:27 AM
I don't think anyone believes that Pakistan will just randomly attack us.

This, the dog is on the porch growling with very large chain around it's neck and is shackled.

Hydrae
05-09-2011, 10:29 AM
At the same time, I do not blame them for saying they will protect their sovereign territory. I would expect the US to do the same thing if another country was flying war planes in our airspace.

vailpass
05-09-2011, 10:31 AM
That's cute of them to think they'd have a chance against our airforce.

IMHO they think nothing of the kind. It is politically imperative for Pakistan's leadership to take this public stance. The American government understands this; it would not surprise me if Pakistan's diplomat had conferred with the US diplomat ahead of time to let us know the statement was coming out.

mikey23545
05-09-2011, 10:35 AM
"Will attack" vs. "will attack if specific trespassing occurs."

Oh FFS... That's the best you can do?

Pissie and Ereckshun are having a retard contest.

blaise
05-09-2011, 10:38 AM
I don't really care if Pakistan says that, but I don't see anything wrong with the headline. I didn't read that and think it meant they were planning an attack or anything, if that's the criticism.

ROYC75
05-09-2011, 10:40 AM
“We’ll take appropriate action if any further violation takes place. We will defend our air space by any means we have.”


This is pretty clear,No ?

dirk digler
05-09-2011, 10:44 AM
This is pretty clear,No ?

Not really

Gilani told the National Assembly in a policy statement over the US military operation in Abbottabad on May 2.“Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with full force.

ROYC75
05-09-2011, 10:46 AM
I don't really care if Pakistan says that, but I don't see anything wrong with the headline. I didn't read that and think it meant they were planning an attack or anything, if that's the criticism.

Not planning, it's an either or case.

ForeverChiefs58
05-09-2011, 10:58 AM
Well, supposedly they scrambled some fighter jets we gave them to go after the seals that killed OBL. If their jets were to kill our troops like that it would be hard to avoid turning pakistan into nukistan.

ROYC75
05-09-2011, 11:01 AM
Well, supposedly they scrambled some fighter jets we gave them to go after the seals that killed OBL. If their jets were to kill our troops like that it would be hard to avoid turning pakistan into nukistan.

I just have a hard time envisioning Pakistan firing upon American planes or choppers.

It would be hell to pay if they did.

blaise
05-09-2011, 11:03 AM
Well, supposedly they scrambled some fighter jets we gave them to go after the seals that killed OBL. If their jets were to kill our troops like that it would be hard to avoid turning pakistan into nukistan.

If they shot one of our aircraft down over their airspace I don't see how we would have much to say about it.

vailpass
05-09-2011, 11:17 AM
Well, supposedly they scrambled some fighter jets we gave them to go after the seals that killed OBL. If their jets were to kill our troops like that it would be hard to avoid turning pakistan into nukistan.

Be funny as hell to hear the Pakistani PM's explanation as to how their fighter jets were taken down by SEALs on the ground who then buzzed the tower before escaping undetected.

patteeu
05-09-2011, 11:25 AM
I have to defer to the combined Bush/Obama administrations on our relationship with Pakistan, which is surely about as complicated a relationship as it can be. We're dependent to some degree on Pakistan for resupply in Afghanistan and presumably for valuable intel. It's also pretty clear that there is a double game being played by some in the Pakistan government, military and intelligence organizations. Only the people who understand how much benefit we get out of the relationship and can determine whether that benefit is worth the costs of putting up with some of these less than optimal realities.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-09-2011, 11:26 AM
I have to defer to the combined Bush/Obama administrations on our relationship with Pakistan, which is surely about as complicated a relationship as it can be. We're dependent to some degree on Pakistan for resupply in Afghanistan and presumably for valuable intel. It's also pretty clear that there is a double game being played by some in the Pakistan government, military and intelligence organizations. Only the people who understand how much benefit we get out of the relationship and can determine whether that benefit is worth the costs of putting up with some of these less than optimal realities.

IE Pakistan is tired of having to explain why civilians are being killed by drones.

ForeverChiefs58
05-09-2011, 11:27 AM
That is the hard part about pakistan. If they are not our friends/ally even if it is only on the surface, then the place would be overrun EVEN moreso by our enemies. Since they have nukes that we gave them, we have to balance working with them or fighting them. I was surprised India didn't turn them into glassistan over all the terrorist attacks pakistan's govt has sponsored.

I for one am against sending $$$, building schools, houses, bridges in another country for them when

a) we have a short on $$$, schools, houses, bridges here at home that need fixing and

b) the people over there just don't like us or appreciate our sacrifice anyway

Saul Good
05-09-2011, 11:27 AM
If they shot one of our aircraft down over their airspace I don't see how we would have much to say about it.

I agree. Can't imagine what our reaction would be if Pakistan sent a team of special forces into the US to carry out a raid. We did what we had to do, and they will have to do what they have to do.

No hard feelings.

vailpass
05-09-2011, 11:30 AM
I agree. Can't imagine what our reaction would be if Pakistan sent a team of special forces into the US to carry out a raid. We did what we had to do, and they will have to do what they have to do.

No hard feelings.

Yep. Although the fact that our number-one most wanted had been living almost next door to one of their military bases for 6 years does mitigate our violation to a certain extent IMHO.

ForeverChiefs58
05-09-2011, 11:36 AM
yes, totally and completely different because we don't harbor terrorists and are not known throughout the rest of the world as supporting terrorists. AQ and the taliban's biggest ally before 9-11 was pakistan. They only publically denounced terrorism after 9-11 when we threatned to blast them back to the stone age

vailpass
05-09-2011, 11:39 AM
yes, totally and completely different because we don't harbor terrorists and are not known throughout the rest of the world as supporting terrorists. AQ and the taliban's biggest ally before 9-11 was pakistan. They only publically denounced terrorism after 9-11 when we threatned to blast them back to the stone age

"Back"?

ForeverChiefs58
05-09-2011, 11:49 AM
ISLAMABAD – Pakistan's prime minister defended his nation's military and intelligence services on Monday and said Pakistan was not solely to blame for the failure to detect Osama bin Laden's presence in a garrison town close to the capital.

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, in his first address to parliament since the covert U.S. raid that killed the al-Qaida chief a week ago, lashed out at allegations Pakistan knew where bin Laden was hiding, though he offered no details on what the country did know about his location. He also warned the U.S. that any unilateral raids in the future would be met with "full force.""

It is disingenuous for anyone to blame Pakistan or state institutions of Pakistan, including the ISI and the armed forces, for being in cahoots with al-Qaida," Gilani said. "Elimination of Osama bin Laden, who launched waves after waves of terrorists attacks against innocent Pakistanis, is indeed justice done."

New signs were emerging of Pakistan's anger over the unilateral action taken by the U.S. in sending Navy SEALs into the country from Afghanistan in helicopters with radar-evading technology. In apparent retaliation, Pakistani media have reported what they said was the name of the CIA station chief in Islamabad in a possible leak from authorities seeking to damage covert American activity in the country.

In his remarks to lawmakers, Gilani acknowledged his nation's failure to track bin Laden but said the failure wasn't Pakistan's alone.

"Yes, there has been an intelligence failure," Gilani said. "It is not only ours but of all the intelligence agencies of the world."

U.S. officials have said they see no evidence that anyone in the upper echelons of Pakistan's military and intelligence establishment was complicit in hiding bin Laden. But they still have serious questions about how the al-Qaida chief was able to hole up for up to six years in the army town of Abbottabad, just 35 miles (55 kilometers) from the capital, Islamabad.

President Barack Obama said the U.S. believes bin Laden must have had a support network inside Pakistan.

"But we don't know who or what that support network was," Obama said in an interview broadcast Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes." "We don't know whether there might have been some people inside of government, people outside of government, and that's something that we have to investigate, and more importantly, the Pakistani government has to investigate."

American officials have said they didn't inform Pakistan in advance of the raid out of fear bin Laden could be tipped off.

Gilani warned the U.S., which has carried out numerous drone strikes on militant targets along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan, not to try a similar covert raid in the future, saying "unilateralism runs the inherent risk of serious consequences."

"Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with full force," Gilani said. "No one should underestimate the resolve and capability of our nation and armed forces to defend our sacred homeland."

The Pakistani military scrambled F-16 fighters and sent forces to bin Laden's compound as soon as they were aware of the raid, Gilani said. Even though they were unable to interdict U.S. forces before they were on their way back to Afghanistan, he expressed confidence in their performance.

He said the army will conduct an inquiry into the raid and military officials will brief parliament later in May.

Pakistan is a key but sometimes unpredictable partner with Washington in combatting Islamic militants and has been an ally in the war against Taliban insurgents in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. In return, the U.S. provides the country with billions of dollars in aid.

Gilani said that relationship remained robust.

"Pakistan attaches high importance to its relations with the U.S.," Gilani said. "Our communications at the official and diplomatic levels with the U.S., during this phase, have been good, productive and straight forward."

But new questions about the relationship arose with the publication in Pakistani media of what they said is the name of the top CIA operative in the country — the second such potential outing of a sensitive covert operative in six months.

The Associated Press has learned that the name being reported is misspelled. Still, the publication of any alleged identity of the U.S. spy agency's top official in this country could be pushback from Pakistan's powerful military and Inter-Services Intelligence agency in retaliation for the American raid.

On Friday, the private TV channel ARY broadcast what it said was the current CIA station chief's name. The Nation, a right-wing newspaper, picked up the story Saturday.

ARY's news director, Mazhar Abbas, said the television station's reporter gleaned the name from a source. He defended the broadcast, saying it was "based on fact" and rejected suggestions the name was leaked to the television channel by an official with a motive.

The AP is not publishing the station chief's name because he is undercover and his identity is classified.

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of discussing CIA personnel issues, told the AP that there are no plans to remove the station chief from Pakistan.

A spokesman for Pakistani intelligence declined to comment.

Asad Munir, a former intelligence chief with responsibility for Pakistan's militant-populated tribal areas, said very few people know the name of the CIA station chief in Islamabad. But he said that releasing it would not necessarily jeopardize the American's safety.

"Normally people in intelligence have cover names," Munir said. "Only if there is a photograph to identify him could it put his life in danger."

In December, the CIA pulled its then-station chief out of Pakistan after a name alleged to be his surfaced in public and his safety was deemed at risk. That name hit the local presses after it was mentioned by a lawyer who planned a lawsuit on behalf of victims of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal belt.

Suspicions have lingered that that outing was orchestrated by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency to avenge an American lawsuit that named its chief over the 2008 terror attacks on the Indian city of Mumbai. The Pakistani agency denied leaking the CIA operative's name.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_pakistan_bin_laden

ForeverChiefs58
05-09-2011, 11:51 AM
Supporters of Pakistani religious party Jamiatulema-i-Islam rally to condemn the killing of Osama bin Laden. Wonder how pissed pakistan would be if we dropped a bomb right in middle of this crowd?
http://l.yimg.com/a/p/us/news/editorial/0/2f/02f63707d489638eb8a92a02f80baa93.jpeg

Brock
05-09-2011, 11:55 AM
We shouldn't be giving these people any money. They've made it pretty clear that they're not our friends. If the fact that they have nukes is causing the problem, then let's fix the problem.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-09-2011, 12:04 PM
yes, totally and completely different because we don't harbor terrorists and are not known throughout the rest of the world as supporting terrorists. AQ and the taliban's biggest ally before 9-11 was pakistan. They only publically denounced terrorism after 9-11 when we threatned to blast them back to the stone age

We don't sponsor terrorists? mind telling me how Al Ciaduh got started?

Amnorix
05-09-2011, 12:14 PM
I have to defer to the combined Bush/Obama administrations on our relationship with Pakistan, which is surely about as complicated a relationship as it can be. We're dependent to some degree on Pakistan for resupply in Afghanistan and presumably for valuable intel. It's also pretty clear that there is a double game being played by some in the Pakistan government, military and intelligence organizations. Only the people who understand how much benefit we get out of the relationship and can determine whether that benefit is worth the costs of putting up with some of these less than optimal realities.

Insightful post.

The key here is that the civilian government HAS VERY LIMITED SUPERVISION/CONTROL over the military and intelligence in that country. It is very difficult for us to comprehend how their system works. The answer is that it works in a very dysfunctional fashion, at best.

Look, we're all glad we got bin Laden, but we also humiliated them and violated their national sovereignty in doing so. Did you expect a note of appreciation? "Thanks for finding the world's most wanted criminal in our backyard, showing that we were either complicit in hiding him, or blind to not see him, and thanks also for bringing in a strike mission and attacking us 2 hours from our capital, in a military town, showing that we are militarily incompetent or impotent. Here's a bouquet of flowers."

I mean, c'mon.

I would not be at all surprised to find that the military is putting pressure on the civilian government to issue such a statement because they don't like being humiliated.

Amnorix
05-09-2011, 12:15 PM
Supporters of Pakistani religious party Jamiatulema-i-Islam rally to condemn the killing of Osama bin Laden. Wonder how pissed pakistan would be if we dropped a bomb right in middle of this crowd?



Wow. Just wow. You sure are quick to violate other country's sovereignty and potentially cuase additional wars we cant' afford just to show that you got a big dick.

Remind me not to elect you for anything above dog catcher.

mlyonsd
05-09-2011, 12:18 PM
I wonder what they'd have said if we invaded with a force of several hundred.

Brock
05-09-2011, 12:20 PM
Insightful post.

The key here is that the civilian government HAS VERY LIMITED SUPERVISION/CONTROL over the military and intelligence in that country. It is very difficult for us to comprehend how their system works. The answer is that it works in a very dysfunctional fashion, at best.

Look, we're all glad we got bin Laden, but we also humiliated them and violated their national sovereignty in doing so. Did you expect a note of appreciation? "Thanks for finding the world's most wanted criminal in our backyard, showing that we were either complicit in hiding him, or blind to not see him, and thanks also for bringing in a strike mission and attacking us 2 hours from our capital, in a military town, showing that we are militarily incompetent or impotent. Here's a bouquet of flowers."

I mean, c'mon.

I would not be at all surprised to find that the military is putting pressure on the civilian government to issue such a statement because they don't like being humiliated.

How much humiliation should 18 billion dollars be expected to buy?

Jaric
05-09-2011, 12:21 PM
How much humiliation should 18 billion dollars be expected to buy?

I'd post my personal list, but I'm afraid you all would just judge me for it.

mlyonsd
05-09-2011, 12:24 PM
I'd post my personal list, but I'm afraid you all would just judge me for it.

Oh I doubt that. Go ahead.

BigMeatballDave
05-09-2011, 12:28 PM
Pakistan is some posturing motherfuckers.

All this is, is them flexing their sphincters to save face with the rest of the Muslim world.

BigMeatballDave
05-09-2011, 12:30 PM
LMAO It must suck to be a liberal right now.

Amnorix
05-09-2011, 12:36 PM
How much humiliation should 18 billion dollars be expected to buy?


I'm pretty sure they thought they were selling cooperation, not humiliation. I doubt the price for humiliation was negotiated.

Amnorix
05-09-2011, 12:37 PM
LMAO It must suck to be a liberal right now.


No clue why you think this.

Brock
05-09-2011, 12:47 PM
I'm pretty sure they thought they were selling cooperation, not humiliation. I doubt the price for humiliation was negotiated.

If they were selling cooperation, they've not delivered.

vailpass
05-09-2011, 12:51 PM
Supporters of Pakistani religious party Jamiatulema-i-Islam rally to condemn the killing of Osama bin Laden. Wonder how pissed pakistan would be if we dropped a bomb right in middle of this crowd?

How can anyone expect to be taken seriously when they walk around dressed like a bunch of extras in an Indiana Jones movie?

Amnorix
05-09-2011, 12:51 PM
If they were selling cooperation, they've not delivered.

Oh they have absolutely delivered. They may not have delivered as much as you and I (or Bush or Obama) would like, but to say that they haven't delivered is absolutely incorrect.

I could post links to the MANY drone attacks we've launched on their territory without their protesting sovereignty, or how their intelligence tips helped lead to hte capture of bin Laden himself, but you know it to be true as well as I.

Amnorix
05-09-2011, 12:53 PM
How can anyone expect to be taken seriously when they walk around dressed like a bunch of extras in an Indiana Jones movie?


Ignorant ethno-centric much?

vailpass
05-09-2011, 12:53 PM
Oh they have absolutely delivered. They may not have delivered as much as you and I (or Bush or Obama) would like, but to say that they haven't delivered is absolutely incorrect.

I could post links to the MANY drone attacks we've launched on their territory without their protesting sovereignty, or how their intelligence tips helped lead to hte capture of bin Laden himself, but you know it to be true as well as I.

Supply routes too.

Amnorix
05-09-2011, 12:55 PM
FTR, 234 drone attacks in Pakistan since 2004.

Direckshun
05-09-2011, 12:57 PM
I don't think anyone believes that Pakistan will just randomly attack us.

I don't think anyone could believe I'm sympathetic to Osama Bin Laden either, but when I mistype something that seems like I do, you don't hesitate to point it out.

Cave Johnson
05-09-2011, 12:57 PM
LMAO It must suck to be a liberal right now.

Yeah, it totally sucks that our guy got OBL.

Direckshun
05-09-2011, 12:58 PM
I have to defer to the combined Bush/Obama administrations on our relationship with Pakistan, which is surely about as complicated a relationship as it can be. We're dependent to some degree on Pakistan for resupply in Afghanistan and presumably for valuable intel. It's also pretty clear that there is a double game being played by some in the Pakistan government, military and intelligence organizations. Only the people who understand how much benefit we get out of the relationship and can determine whether that benefit is worth the costs of putting up with some of these less than optimal realities.

My thoughts as well.

vailpass
05-09-2011, 12:59 PM
Yeah, it totally sucks that our guy got OBL.

LMAO
Economy? Bush's policies enacted before obama are to blame.
Unemployment? Bush's policies enacted before obama are to blame.
Culmination of a 10 year hunt for bin laden? You tell me.

Amnorix
05-09-2011, 12:59 PM
My thoughts as well.

Hey Pat -- Direckshun and I agree with you. Does that mean you need to rethink your position?


:p

Direckshun
05-09-2011, 01:03 PM
Wonder how pissed pakistan would be if we dropped a bomb right in middle of this crowd?

Wow. Just wow. You sure are quick to violate other country's sovereignty and potentially cuase additional wars we cant' afford just to show that you got a big dick.

That's FC58. All hot air, absolutely no plan of action.

His entire solution to Middle East policy is "to bomb or to shoot terrorists," but he doesn't know how to do it.

Which distinguishes his position from a 9 year old's... somehow. I'm not sure.

BigMeatballDave
05-09-2011, 01:04 PM
Yeah, it totally sucks that our guy got OBL.:thumb: I was actually referring to
Direckshun's bleeding vagina. :)

Cave Johnson
05-09-2011, 01:06 PM
LMAO
Economy? Bush's policies enacted before obama are to blame.
Unemployment? Bush's policies enacted before obama are to blame.
Culmination of a 10 year hunt for bin laden? You tell me.

The recession started under W's watch.
Employment lags the economy.
Obama approved a strategy to get OBL that neocons denounced.

vailpass
05-09-2011, 01:09 PM
Ignorant ethno-centric much?

LMAO

Brock
05-09-2011, 01:15 PM
Oh they have absolutely delivered. They may not have delivered as much as you and I (or Bush or Obama) would like, but to say that they haven't delivered is absolutely incorrect.

I could post links to the MANY drone attacks we've launched on their territory without their protesting sovereignty, or how their intelligence tips helped lead to hte capture of bin Laden himself, but you know it to be true as well as I.

Oh, okay. So we should have trusted them and told them what we were going to do. Are you really this naive?

Brock
05-09-2011, 01:18 PM
They had this guy living under their noses for 5 or more years and didn't know it? Jesus Christ, how stupid do you have to be to believe that?

vailpass
05-09-2011, 01:18 PM
The recession started under W's watch.
Employment lags the economy.
Obama approved a strategy to get OBL that neocons denounced.

LMAO Sad.

Do you really feel obama is an effective President? I understand the "he's a liberal and that's what I like" thing but honestly, do you feel he is a qualified leader?

ForeverChiefs58
05-09-2011, 01:36 PM
Wow. Just wow. You sure are quick to violate other country's sovereignty and potentially cuase additional wars we cant' afford just to show that you got a big dick.

Remind me not to elect you for anything above dog catcher.


:spock: So, it's ok when obama does it, right? :thumb:

I agree with the last two presidents in not respecting the sovereignty of a terrorist harbouring country. Fuck anyone who holds a rally celebrating what some murderous terrorist bastard has done. Fuck them with a giant bomb in their ass! Pakistan can't afford a war with ANYONE let alone the US. It is said their economy would shrivel up like your dick without our billions given to them. And yes, I do have a big dick, thanks for asking but I am not available, try nodirecshun.

That's FC58. All hot air, absolutely no plan of action.

His entire solution to Middle East policy is "to bomb or to shoot terrorists," but he doesn't know how to do it.

Which distinguishes his position from a 9 year old's... somehow. I'm not sure.

It is just a more stepped up plan then the current and last president of the US had dumbass. We are bombing and shooting terrorists now you fucking dolt. Are you really this fucking stupid, or has syphilist made you mentally retarded? Take the donkey's dick out of your mouth long enough to comprhend it, jackass!

BucEyedPea
05-09-2011, 01:45 PM
:

I agree with the last two presidents in not respecting the sovereignty of a terrorist harbouring country.

Using that description, you'd have to include the United States since the 9/11 hijackers were living in America, specifically Florida. They were even suspected and reported by employees where they were doing flight training too. Nothing was really done.

Just because these terrorists are hiding in a country does not mean their govt knows for certain they, or knows they are but not where. You need to realize that. These terrorists hide among the people and cover it up. Some were even hiding out in Germany. That's the nature of this kind of war. It's not nation state warfare.

The Yemeni bride of binLaden's family was interrogated by the Yemen govt and watched due to that marriage even. The Yemeni govt wasn't happy about it but it already happened. The family was warned to never talk about it, obviously because the Yemeni govt was afraid of the consequences.

I am not saying there may be some in the Pakistani gont or intel, that may have turned a blind eye if they did suspect and remain silent, but that doesn't make their govt complicit. It's just bullshit.

You NeoCons react in a knee-jerk manner like bulls in a china shop, breaking everything carelessly instead of using some reason to balance out the need for force.

ROYC75
05-09-2011, 01:48 PM
FTR, 234 drone attacks in Pakistan since 2004.

Obviously not enough since their are many more AQ & Taliban members still loose.

But that is a whole other topic. Many people want to just pull out now since OBL is dead. Some very valid points & reasoning since we are in cahoots financially here in the states.

BucEyedPea
05-09-2011, 01:49 PM
The depression started under W's watch.
Employment lags the economy.
Obama approved a strategy to get OBL that neocons denounced.
FYP

and

No, NeoCon Frum is saying to switch to Pakistan now.

Direckshun
05-09-2011, 01:50 PM
It is just a more stepped up plan then the current and last president of the US had dumbass. We are bombing and shooting terrorists now you ****ing dolt. Are you really this ****ing stupid, or has syphilist made you mentally retarded? Take the donkey's dick out of your mouth long enough to comprhend it, jackass!

You're not exactly helping with your case.

BigMeatballDave
05-09-2011, 01:51 PM
Using that description, you'd have to include the United States since the 9/11 hijackers were living in America, specifically Florida. They were even suspected and reported by employees where they were doing flight training too. Nothing was really done.

:facepalm:

Amnorix
05-09-2011, 01:53 PM
Oh, okay. So we should have trusted them and told them what we were going to do. Are you really this naive?


WTF? Where did I say that.

Obviously not. The point was to GET Osama [cough]. Telling the Pakistanis we were coming would be guaranteed to thwart that goal.

But that doesn't mean they haven't helped. And it doesn't mean they have no right to be annoyed that we violated their sovereignty (which we did). And it also doesn't mean that we have no right to say "hey, scrwe you, he was under your roof for years and your inability to control your military/intel meant we had to do it without warning you."

But the bottom line here is that none of this is easy, or obvious.

Amnorix
05-09-2011, 01:55 PM
They had this guy living under their noses for 5 or more years and didn't know it? Jesus Christ, how stupid do you have to be to believe that?

The question is WHO knew it. It's entirely possible that senior elements in the military/intel knew it without telling the civilians. Or that it was just a small(ish) group within military/intel with Taliban/Al Queda sympathies.

The Pakistani government is very dysfunctional. If all elements of Pakistan's government knew about bin Laden, then it's practically guaranteed someone would have sold him out to us a long time ago.

vailpass
05-09-2011, 01:57 PM
WTF? Where did I say that.

Obviously not. The point was to GET Obama. Telling the Pakistanis we were coming would be guaranteed to thwart that goal.

But that doesn't mean they haven't helped. And it doesn't mean they have no right to be annoyed that we violated their sovereignty (which we did). And it also doesn't mean that we have no right to say "hey, scrwe you, he was under your roof for years and your inability to control your military/intel meant we had to do it without warning you."

But the bottom line here is that none of this is easy, or obvious.

We can only wish.

Amnorix
05-09-2011, 01:57 PM
:spock: So, it's ok when obama does it, right? :thumb:

To get bin Laden, yes. To "get" a bunch of guys exercising what in American would be called freedom of assembly, not so much.

I agree with the last two presidents in not respecting the sovereignty of a terrorist harbouring country. Fuck anyone who holds a rally celebrating what some murderous terrorist bastard has done. Fuck them with a giant bomb in their ass! Pakistan can't afford a war with ANYONE let alone the US. It is said their economy would shrivel up like your dick without our billions given to them. And yes, I do have a big dick, thanks for asking but I am not available, try nodirecshun.

It is just a more stepped up plan then the current and last president of the US had dumbass. We are bombing and shooting terrorists now you fucking dolt. Are you really this fucking stupid, or has syphilist made you mentally retarded? Take the donkey's dick out of your mouth long enough to comprhend it, jackass!


The stupid is strong with you. Try to keep it under control. At least in public. It's embarrassing.

Amnorix
05-09-2011, 01:57 PM
We can only wish.

Second time in a week I mistyped that. Yeesh.

vailpass
05-09-2011, 01:59 PM
Second time in a week I mistyped that. Yeesh.

Paging Dr. Freud....:)

Amnorix
05-09-2011, 02:00 PM
Obviously not enough since their are many more AQ & Taliban members still loose.


What's your plan Lieutenant Calley?

ForeverChiefs58
05-09-2011, 02:03 PM
Using that description, you'd have to include the United States since the 9/11 hijackers were living in America, specifically Florida. They were even suspected and reported by employees where they were doing flight training too. Nothing was really done.

Just because these terrorists are hiding in a country does not mean their govt knows for certain they, or knows they are but not where. You need to realize that. These terrorists hide among the people and cover it up. Some were even hiding out in Germany. That's the nature of this kind of war. It's not nation state warfare.

The Yemeni bride of binLaden's family was interrogated by the Yemen govt and watched due to that marriage even. The Yemeni govt wasn't happy about it but it already happened. The family was warned to never talk about it, obviously because the Yemeni govt was afraid of the consequences.

I am not saying there may be some in the Pakistani gont or intel, that may have turned a blind eye if they did suspect and remain silent, but that doesn't make their govt complicit. It's just bullshit.

You NeoCons react in a knee-jerk manner like bulls in a china shop, breaking everything carelessly instead of using some reason to balance out the need for force.

They weren't wanted then because it was before they had commited their terrorists acts. Had they done ANYTHING like that ANYWHERE in the world we would not have permitted them to fly period. They also were never suspected by the pilot who trained them to be future terrorists.

link: http://www.ktvq.com/news/american-who-trained-9-11-pilots-still-wonders-why-me-/

American who trained 9/11 pilots still wonders, 'Why me?'

He didn't lose any friends or family on that Tuesday in September of 2001, but Rudi Dekkers achieved infamy that day, watching two of his flight school students commit murder as they steered two hijacked passenger jets into the World Trade Center towers.

Today, he celebrates the death of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

"I wish I killed him," he told CNN. "Like a lot of people, I wish I was the one. And bravo to everyone who was behind this. The head of the snake is gone."

Dekkers says he's spent the past 10 years wondering why two terrorists would choose his Venice, Florida, flight school to practice for the day that will go down in U.S. history as one of its greatest tragedies.

Now bin Laden may be gone, but the pain is not.

"To realize he's not there anymore takes some time ... it's a deep emotion for me," Dekkers said. "I don't have that closure yet. I feel like it is buried. But it is fine and perfect that he's out of the picture."

Dekkers' life has been turned upside down ever since it became known that Mohamed Atta and Marwan al Shehhi came to his school, Huffman Aviation, to get their multi-engine commercial pilot licenses in the summer of 2000.

A year later, Atta piloted American Airlines Flight 11 into the north tower of the World Trade Center and shortly after, al Shehhi steered United Airlines Flight 175 into the south tower.

Dekkers wrote a book about it, "Guilty by Association,"

He says the title pretty much sums up the last 10 years of his life, filled with threats, forced to sell his business.

"Guilty by association is meant as a phrase to mean banks won't borrow you money. I can't get a job because I'm related to 9/11," he claimed.

And now, with the death of bin Laden, Dekkers is emotionally encouraged, but it's only part of the healing.

"Ten years with this emotion, do you think it's over in one day?" he asked. "They want a scapegoat ... when I met people and they found out I was affiliated with this, they turned their back."

Dekkers no longer has a flight school. He was not able to secure financing, he believes, because of his ties to the 9/11 tragedy.

He went into the swimming pool business for a while and today he runs a cellular phone business. He says that while the event remains heavy on his mind, he does not feel responsible.

"Is the grocery store responsible for keeping them alive, because they bought groceries there? This is life. We're all caught up in this," he said.

Dekkers says that both Atta and al Shehhi never displayed any behaviors that would have labeled them as terrorists. At one point, he says, the two men were on the verge of being kicked out of the school because they did not appear to be taking their training seriously and were too busy fooling around and not listening to their instructors. They had to be warned, and went on to become average students, Dekkers said.

"Al Shehhi was a more likable person. He laughed and joked," said Dekkers.

"My employees called Atta 'Dead man walking.' He had a white face and no emotions and was a nasty person, very unfriendly," Dekkers told CNN.

The two future terrorists went on to pass the FAA commercial pilot's test and were granted their licenses.

"I didn't know what they were about to do," Dekkers said. "I don't feel guilty at all. I couldn't do nothing about it.

"I wish I could be a hero. I think about this often. Why me? But that's fate. You can't turn away from fate, I guess."

ForeverChiefs58
05-09-2011, 02:08 PM
You're not exactly helping with your case.

You are not helping your case either.

ROYC75
05-09-2011, 02:08 PM
What's your plan Lieutenant Calley?

With no serious leader of AQ, it's anybody's guess right now. They are left with no leader, still very little cash to funnel their cause, I would continue going over the data they contained from OBL raid and hit ( drones )where it is needed.

Sit on stand by until it is clear or clearer to demobilized and come home. The less money spent is better.


But to everybody harping on the crap, my POTUS is better than your POTUS is hogwash. The main objective was to get OBL. It was done, done at the right time, regardless who the POTUS was. Let's just be glad that he is dead, regardless how we got him or the information selected and by which way we got the information.

Some people just look for moral victories to establish their beliefs on whom they voted for.

ForeverChiefs58
05-09-2011, 02:17 PM
To get bin Laden, yes. To "get" a bunch of guys exercising what in American would be called freedom of assembly, not so much.

Wrong, comparison FAIL. Taliban, AQ, and other terrorists organizations do NOT have any rights to do anything in the US.

They should be treated as they would on the battlefield.

Amnorix
05-09-2011, 02:26 PM
With no serious leader of AQ, it's anybody's guess right now. They are left with no leader, still very little cash to funnel their cause, I would continue going over the data they contained from OBL raid and hit ( drones )where it is needed.

Sit on stand by until it is clear or clearer to demobilized and come home. The less money spent is better.


But to everybody harping on the crap, my POTUS is better than your POTUS is hogwash. The main objective was to get OBL. It was done, done at the right time, regardless who the POTUS was. Let's just be glad that he is dead, regardless how we got him or the information selected and by which way we got the information.

Some people just look for moral victories to establish their beliefs on whom they voted for.


Wait, I thought you wanted to bomb every group of 3 or more Muslims who said anything bad about the US, or good about Osama, or looked cross-eyed at the camera?

This post is actually moderately reasonable. Try to stick to rational thought, it's much more productive.

Dave Lane
05-09-2011, 02:43 PM
You would have to be mentally challenged to think that this statement wouldn't be forthcoming. Of course they are going to rattle their sabers. And if / when we go in again they will probably save this very statement

ForeverChiefs58
05-09-2011, 02:52 PM
The question is WHO knew it. It's entirely possible that senior elements in the military/intel knew it without telling the civilians. Or that it was just a small(ish) group within military/intel with Taliban/Al Queda sympathies.

The Pakistani government is very dysfunctional. If all elements of Pakistan's government knew about bin Laden, then it's practically guaranteed someone would have sold him out to us a long time ago.


here is a blurb from an article in time mag about bin laden's widow Amal.

In 2002, Amal reportedly gave an interview to a Saudi woman's magazine, Al Majalla, in which she explained how, after the 9/11 attacks, she made her way out of Afghanistan back to Yemen with assistance from Pakistani officials.

Bin Laden's widow told her Saudi interviewer at the time, "When the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan started, we moved to a mountainous area with some children and lived in one of the caves for two months until one of his sons came with a group of tribesmen and took us with them. I did not know that we were going to Pakistan until they handed us over to the Pakistani government."

Pakistan's security establishment has long been accused of playing a double game: taking billions in U.S. aid while secretly backing select jihadi militants in Afghanistan and in Pakistan's tribal region. Even al-Qaeda types were expected to play ball. Says the Arab woman formerly connected to al-Qaeda: "There was an understanding with the Pakistani army. We would get a tip-off that the army planned to raid one of our houses in the tribal area. We would flee but leave some 'evidence' behind so that the army could show to the Americans that we'd been there."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110506/wl_time/08599206993400

ForeverChiefs58
05-09-2011, 02:57 PM
I am sure the REAL reason for pakistan's statement is really to let india know they don't want THEM doing any cross border raids.

the pakistanis are still helping us with drone attacks and assisting us in tracking terrorists.

Jerm
05-09-2011, 03:02 PM
yes, totally and completely different because we don't harbor terrorists and are not known throughout the rest of the world as supporting terrorists.

:LOL:LMAO

Thanks I needed that laugh.

As far as the OP goes, I firmly believe China will have Pakistan's back in any confrontation with the U.S., to what extent is debatable though...I wouldn't just dismiss this as barking or talking big.

ForeverChiefs58
05-09-2011, 03:32 PM
:LOL:LMAO

Thanks I needed that laugh.

As far as the OP goes, I firmly believe China will have Pakistan's back in any confrontation with the U.S., to what extent is debatable though...I wouldn't just dismiss this as barking or talking big.

:spock:

Amnorix
05-09-2011, 03:33 PM
here is a blurb from an article in time mag about bin laden's widow Amal.

In 2002, Amal reportedly gave an interview to a Saudi woman's magazine, Al Majalla, in which she explained how, after the 9/11 attacks, she made her way out of Afghanistan back to Yemen with assistance from Pakistani officials.

Bin Laden's widow told her Saudi interviewer at the time, "When the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan started, we moved to a mountainous area with some children and lived in one of the caves for two months until one of his sons came with a group of tribesmen and took us with them. I did not know that we were going to Pakistan until they handed us over to the Pakistani government."

Pakistan's security establishment has long been accused of playing a double game: taking billions in U.S. aid while secretly backing select jihadi militants in Afghanistan and in Pakistan's tribal region. Even al-Qaeda types were expected to play ball. Says the Arab woman formerly connected to al-Qaeda: "There was an understanding with the Pakistani army. We would get a tip-off that the army planned to raid one of our houses in the tribal area. We would flee but leave some 'evidence' behind so that the army could show to the Americans that we'd been there."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110506/wl_time/08599206993400


Thank you for posting this. In an effort to reciprocate this informative post, I'd like to let you know that water is wet.

Amnorix
05-09-2011, 03:47 PM
:spock:


Wait, wait, let me guess. You understand the "Oriental mind"...?

ForeverChiefs58
05-09-2011, 03:47 PM
Thank you for posting this. In an effort to reciprocate this informative post, I'd like to let you know that water is wet.

Well it affirms what everyone already knew, dispite what the WH says, it is evidence from OBL's own wife that the pakistani govt colluded with AQ. It was also in response to what you said that if govt knew they would sell him out, but reality was that their intention was just to give the US just enough to keep our billions coming to them.

So yes, water is wet.

ForeverChiefs58
05-09-2011, 03:49 PM
Wait, wait, let me guess. You understand the "Oriental mind"...?

That was not from his response about china, but that the US was known throughout the international community to harbored and support terrorism.

go bowe
05-09-2011, 03:50 PM
Well it affirms what everyone already knew, dispite what the WH says, it is evidence from OBL's own wife that the pakistani govt colluded with AQ. It was also in response to what you said that if more knew they would sell him out, that their intention was to give the US just enough to keep our billions coming to them.

So yes, water is wet.pinko commie rat basterd...

water is NOT wet, beer is...

go bowe
05-09-2011, 03:52 PM
That was not from his response about china, but that the US was known throughout the international community to harbored and support terrorism.
yeah, what's up with that anyway?

what terrorism is it that we supposedly harbor and support?

you should ask about that...

the answer should be good...

ForeverChiefs58
05-09-2011, 03:59 PM
yeah, what's up with that anyway?

what terrorism is it that we supposedly harbor and support?

you should ask about that...

the answer should be good...

sorry, had a good family friend killed in afghanistan recently, and I just don't have it in me right now. Been on the verge of tears everytime I think of him.

Think I will go have a cold glass or 5 of some of that wet beer you were talking about.

go bowe
05-09-2011, 04:02 PM
sorry, had a good family friend killed in afghanistan recently, and I just don't have it in me right now. Been on the verge of tears everytime I think of him.

Think I will go have a cold glass or 5 of some of that wet beer you were talking about.let me toast your friend, then... :toast:

Jerm
05-09-2011, 04:04 PM
yeah, what's up with that anyway?

what terrorism is it that we supposedly harbor and support?

you should ask about that...

the answer should be good...

What the hell do you think the CIA is???

What about all the U.S. friendly regimes we've helped see into power in the ME...do you think they're choir boys?

We're always in business of helping ANYONE if it benefits the top echelon's interests.

Let's not be naive here.

ForeverChiefs58
05-09-2011, 04:12 PM
let me toast your friend, then... :toast:

Thanks, go bowe. I toast him with you. :toast:

BucEyedPea
05-09-2011, 04:18 PM
They weren't wanted then because it was before they had commited their terrorists acts. Had they done ANYTHING like that ANYWHERE in the world we would not have permitted them to fly period. They also were never suspected by the pilot who trained them to be future terrorists
There were terrorist acts committed in the 1990's preceding 9/11 though. It was treated as a crime by our govt with trials too.

The point your missing is that "harboring" implies intentional with official govt complicity. It's one thing to have them hide in a country; it's entirely another for govt to be actively involved in the matter. It's another thing for some of their people to be involved. The Pakistani govt have helped in some ways on terrorism and not in other ways—they simply cannot be seen as being too much on our side. They're between a rock and a hard place so to speak.

Iowanian
05-09-2011, 04:18 PM
So let me get this straight.....American forces came into your country, dropped from ropes from the night, terminated the lives of the assholes we've been paying Billions of dollars to help us catch, stayed long enough to help them move, and shit the company dog on your lawn...across the street from your nation's top shelf military training mission, they were unable to get out of bed quick enough to figure out where the explosions were coming from....and now you're going to threaten US Troops?

I guess we'll find out if Obama has a hairy pair of balls if the PM walks out of that meeting with his underwear pulled over his head.

BucEyedPea
05-09-2011, 04:22 PM
I am sure the REAL reason for pakistan's statement is really to let india know they don't want THEM doing any cross border raids.
Good point. I am sure India would love to get ahold of their nukes too.

the pakistanis are still helping us with drone attacks and assisting us in tracking terrorists.

Yup! They have to walk a very fine line due to the make-up of their population.

Iowanian
05-09-2011, 04:23 PM
I hope the US delivered a list of wanted AQ militants and a timeline for them to be delivered or else face a list of defined consequences.

vailpass
05-09-2011, 04:25 PM
Wait, wait, let me guess. You understand the "Oriental mind"...?

In undergrad I worked evaluating exams for a national college entrance exam provider. On their question list for potential part-time instructors was a nationality self-ID form. One of the options was Oriental. I h ad a guy call me up from California screaming his head off that he was "asian not oriental! Oriental is a piece of furniture, does (company name) think I'm a piece of furniture? This is racist!"
I laughed hard and said "so solly I no undastand engrish" and hung up on him.

Count Zarth
05-09-2011, 04:27 PM
Pakistan would be idiots to attack the US. India is sitting there with nukes.

Brock
05-09-2011, 04:28 PM
Good point. I am sure India would love to get ahold of their nukes too.



Yup! They have to walk a very fine line due to the make-up of their population.

Well, they can walk that fine line without billions of dollars from us, AFAIC.

notorious
05-09-2011, 04:35 PM
This, the dog is on the porch growling with very large chain around it's neck and is shackled.

In this case the dog is a 15 year old, 3 legged chiauaha.

LiveSteam
05-09-2011, 06:16 PM
What happened to the secret agreement that Bush made 10 years ago?

HonestChieffan
05-09-2011, 06:40 PM
Pakistan would be idiots to attack the US. India is sitting there with nukes.

Pakis have nukes as well. We give them billions that they give to Korea and China who give them nukes. YeeHaa. FU American Taxpayers.

Jaric
05-09-2011, 09:05 PM
Oh I doubt that. Go ahead.

Lets just say the list of things on it is FAR longer than the list of things off it.

Extra Point
05-09-2011, 09:10 PM
Pakistan would be idiots to attack the US. India is sitting there with nukes.

Yeah, but this jet stream thing won't do them many favors.

Amnorix
05-10-2011, 06:06 AM
In undergrad I worked evaluating exams for a national college entrance exam provider. On their question list for potential part-time instructors was a nationality self-ID form. One of the options was Oriental. I h ad a guy call me up from California screaming his head off that he was "asian not oriental! Oriental is a piece of furniture, does (company name) think I'm a piece of furniture? This is racist!"
I laughed hard and said "so solly I no undastand engrish" and hung up on him.

The word Oriental is, these days, considered derogatory. It didn't used to be, but now the correct term (in PC-land, if you will) is Asian.

I used the word Oriental there specifically because I'm directly quoting Douglas MacArthur and his seriously costly mistake in assessing whether China would come into the North Korean War and the level of trust invested in him because of such self-proclamation.

ForeverChiefs58
05-10-2011, 07:51 AM
The word Oriental is, these days, considered derogatory. It didn't used to be, but now the correct term (in PC-land, if you will) is Asian.

I used the word Oriental there specifically because I'm directly quoting Douglas MacArthur and his seriously costly mistake in assessing whether China would come into the North Korean War and the level of trust invested in him because of such self-proclamation.

Macarthur didn't think china would come into the korean war? Wow. Wasn't there like a million chinese that died in that war?

patteeu
05-10-2011, 07:55 AM
Macarthur didn't think china would come into the korean war? Wow. Wasn't there like a million chinese that died in that war?

Yeah, but when you think about how many Chinese there are in the world, he was close. ;)

ForeverChiefs58
05-10-2011, 06:37 PM
Fear that U.S. could grab nuclear arsenal heightens Pakistani anger

Last week's U.S. raid into Pakistan is fueling one of the country's most enduring—and potentially dangerous—conspiracy theories: that the U.S. has designs on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and is prepared to send highly trained commandos into the country to seize control of the weapons.

The pervasive Pakistani belief that the U.S. would be willing and able to effectively steal the country's nuclear weapons helps explain Islamabad's surprisingly aggressive official response to the Navy SEAL assault that killed Osama bin Laden, the world's most wanted terrorist.

Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, the head of Pakistan's armed forces, released a blistering public statement late last week condemning the U.S. assault and warning that he would order his troops to use armed force against any American troops who entered Pakistan in the future in pursuit of other wanted militants.

Kayani's statement also made explicit reference to his country's nuclear arsenal, which he promised to fully defend against any potential American-led efforts to take control of the weapons.

"As regards the possibility of similar hostile action against our strategic assets, the [Pakistani military] reaffirmed that, unlike an undefended civilian compound, our strategic assets are well protected and an elaborate defensive mechanism is in place," Kayani said in a statement put out by the military's official press office.

The remarks stunned and angered many senior Obama administration officials, who had expected Pakistan to apologize for the pervasive intelligence failures that allowed bin Laden to spend five years living in an affluent Islamabad suburb under the nose of thousands of Pakistani security officials. American officials also thought Pakistan would quickly ramp up its intelligence sharing about the whereabouts of bin Laden's likely successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri, as part of a package of conciliatory gestures toward Washington, where anti-Pakistani sentiment is running at a fever pitch. Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said his staff would investigate whether elements of Pakistan's government, military, or intelligence service knew bin Laden was in their country or helped shelter him.

"I think at high levels—high levels being the intelligence service—at high levels they knew it," Levin told ABC News last week. "I can't prove it. I just think it's counterintuitive not to."

The Pakistani paranoia about the future of its nuclear arsenal is threatening to deal a new blow to the already troubled relationship between Washington and Islamabad.

Pakistan is a country consumed by conspiracy theories, mainly having to do with allegations of nefarious plots by Israel, the U.S., and India. Pakistani newspapers regularly publish breathless "scoops" about American plans to build large military bases inside the country or about so-called "Indo-Zionist" plots by Israel and India to damage Pakistan's fragile economy or weaken its currency.

But few of the purported plots have endured as long—or become as widely held across diverse swaths of Pakistani society—as the belief that the U.S. has been secretly preparing to fly commandos into Pakistan one day to seize its nuclear weapons. Pakistan is believed to have as many as 100 nuclear warheads, and the conspiracy theorists believe the U.S. will one day try to take the weapons to prevent them from falling into militant hands or being used against India.

"It's one of those conspiracy theories that has been around for a long, long time," Wendy Chamberlin, a former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, said in an interview. "My belief is that the Pakistani armed forces spread the rumor to drum up anti-American sentiment so they can gain leverage with the U.S. by saying, 'Look, our people hate you, and we're the only effective interlocutors you have.'"

Publicly, the Pakistani military has consistently told the U.S. that its nuclear weapons were safely out of the reach of the country's Islamic militants while assuring its own people that Pakistani forces could defend the weapons if American forces made any effort to capture them.

But the ease with which elite U.S. forces jammed Pakistan's advanced air defense systems and mounted a precision operation deep inside Pakistani territory is eroding the Pakistani military's standing in the eyes of its own people and raising new questions there about whether the U.S. could one day mount a similar push to grab Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

"If Americans can attack here, they can do it anywhere," a 23-year-old medical student named Tahirullah told a reporter from The Dawn, an English-language Pakistani newspaper, last week. "This is a shameful incident for us. Our army should have shot down the U.S. choppers."

The leader of Pakistan's leading opposition party, meanwhile, said Pakistan's civilian government should resign for failing to protect the country's sovereignty from being breached by U.S. troops.

"Are we going to be the 52nd state of the U.S.?" Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan told reporters in Islamabad. "Is the world's seventh nuclear power so weak that it can't keep four helicopters from breaking the country's sovereignty?"

Chamberlin, who currently serves as the president of the Middle East Institute in Washington, said relations between the two countries were "at a crisis point" that would only improve if Pakistani leaders toned down their criticism of the U.S., pointing out that American drones had killed numerous high-ranking militants who regularly targeted Pakistani civilians.

"They need to start to change the narrative," she said. "We can't give them this kind of $3 billion a year and get this kind of crap in response."

But persuading Pakistanis to abandon their long-held mistrust of the U.S. is certain to be easier said than done. During a trip to Pakistan last summer, Defense Secretary Robert Gates faced hostile questioning from a journalist from the country's Express 24/7 television station, Quatrina Hosain, who said conspiracy theories about U.S. plots to seize Pakistan's nuclear weapons had taken "on the hue or the coloring of being real" because the American government hadn't formally shot them down. Gates told her there were no such plans and that rumors to the contrary were "all nonsense."

But the questions didn't go away then. The day after his TV interview, Gates told a crowd of stony-faced senior Pakistani military officers at the country's National Defence University that the he wanted to tell them "definitively" that the U.S. had "no desire to control Pakistan's nuclear weapons." Several of the officers shook their heads or rolled their eyes at the remark. With the U.S. demonstrating an ability to do precisely what those officers most feared—easily penetrate their country's allegedly sophisticated defenses without being spotted—the conspiracy theories about alleged American designs on Pakistan's nuclear weapons won't disappear anytime soon.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/fear-that-u-s-could-grab-nuclear-arsenal-heightens-pakistani-anger

Direckshun
05-11-2011, 03:03 PM
Fear that U.S. could grab nuclear arsenal heightens Pakistani anger

Last week's U.S. raid into Pakistan is fueling one of the country's most enduring—and potentially dangerous—conspiracy theories: that the U.S. has designs on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and is prepared to send highly trained commandos into the country to seize control of the weapons.

Fear us, assholes.

I love it. 8)

Jaric
05-11-2011, 05:39 PM
The word Oriental is, these days, considered derogatory. It didn't used to be, but now the correct term (in PC-land, if you will) is Asian.Forserious? Who knew all this time my ramen noodles were tools of social injustice?