• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pakistan's ISI helped hide bin Laden: Book

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,298
Reaction score
26,919
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
http://news.yahoo.com/pakistan-bin-laden-report-192843773.html

Bin Laden "traveled in plain sight," Gall reports, "his convoys always knowingly waved through any security checkpoints." It helped that he "had dispensed with the large entourage that surrounded him in Afghanistan," and now "relied on just two trusted Pakistanis, whom American investigators described as a courier and his brother."

Shortly after the May 1, 2011, U.S. Navy SEAL raid on bin Laden’s house, a Pakistani official told Gall the United States "had direct evidence" that the ISI chief, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, knew bin Laden was in Abbottabad.


Bush praises Pakistan in terror fight - World news - South and Central Asia | NBC News

Bush and Musharraf renewed their war-on-terror alliance in a news conference at the presidential palace, in front of floating pots of flowers in a reflecting pool and quacking ducks. Fears of terrorism brought a tight security clamp and limited Bush’s movements to the palace and the heavily guarded diplomatic compound that houses the U.S. Embassy.

Dick Cheney - Wikiquote

Their whole strategy, if you look at what bin Laden's been saying for 10 years, is they believe they can, in fact, force us to quit, that ultimately we'll get tired of the fight, that we don't have the stomach for a long, tough battle and that we'll pack it in and go home. If we were to do that it would be devastating from the standpoint of the global war on terror. It would affect what happens in Afghanistan. It would make it difficult for us to persuade the Iranians to give up their aspirations for nuclear weapons. It would threaten the stability of regimes like Musharraf in Pakistan and the Saudis in Saudi Arabia. It is absolutely the worst possible thing we could do at this point. It would be to validate and encourage the terrorists by doing exactly what they want us to do.

Rumsfeld Warns Against 'Rush to Judgment' on Pakistan | OTR Interviews | On the Record | Fox News

VAN SUSTEREN: Obviously, we are stunned when we hear information that we they are tipping off the Haqqani network. We hear horrible stories with bin Laden found living there. Secretary Gates said he found no indication that the top leadership knew about it, but that doesn't mean the middle leadership doesn't. They get angry when we give them aid and we want to know what they are going to do with it. They think that's bad.

RUMSFELD:
I've heard no evidence that anyone in any level of the Pakistan government, the military or the intelligence had information as to where Usama bin Laden was located.

Condoleezza Rice's tenure as Secretary of State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rice told reporters she was "quite satisfied" with her talks with senior government and military officials, but a senior Pakistani official said the tone was tougher in private, with Rice emphasizing U.S. expectations that Pakistan aggressively pursue evidence against militant groups.

Strategic dialogue: Kerry hails Pakistan

“The United States has no doubt that Prime Minister [Nawaz] Sharif’s policies will put Pakistan on a path towards a more prosperous future, and we fully support his goal of making Pakistan’s marketplace a tiger economy for the 21st century,” said Kerry, a Democrat senator who in the past spearheaded a multibillion-dollar support package for Pakistan.

Bill Clinton: Pakistan is still a partner in the war on terror | The Daily Caller

“Someone asked me the other day, do you think Pakistan is our partner in war on terror or someone there knew that bin Laden was there and helped him stay anonymous, and my answer was yes to both questions,” Clinton said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/w...ato-after-us-apology.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

“We are sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military,” Mrs. Clinton said in a statement that the State Department issued but that officials said had been coordinated with her Pakistani counterpart. “We are committed to working closely with Pakistan and Afghanistan to prevent this from ever happening again.”

Congress threatens to end Pakistan aid over nuclear program. But US also wants to keep Pakistan's support of Afghan guerrillas - CSMonitor.com

1981-82. Reagan administration negotiates a $3.2 billion, five-year aid program with Pakistan, including 40 F-16 aircraft. Congress votes a five-year waiver of the Symington amendment. Massive aid flows to the Afghan resistance through Pakistan. President Zia promises President Reagan that Pakistan is not interested in acquiring or making nuclear weapons.

Presidency of Jimmy Carter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The international stake in Pakistan, however, had greatly increased with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The President of Pakistan, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, was offered 400 million dollars to subsidize the anti-communist Mujahideen in Afghanistan by Carter. General Zia declined the offer as insufficient, famously declaring it to be "peanuts," and the U.S. was forced to step up aid to Pakistan.

McCain retracts Palin’s Pakistan comments – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

"She would not...she understands and has stated repeatedly that we're not going to do anything except in America's national security interest," McCain told ABC's George Stephanopoulos of Palin. "In all due respect, people going around and... sticking a microphone while conversations are being held, and then all of a sudden that's—that's a person's position... This is a free country, but I don't think most Americans think that that's a definitve policy statement made by Governor Palin."

Palin ignores her own Pakistan remark while criticizing Obama – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

“Senator Obama has also advocated sending our U.S. military into Pakistan without the approval of the Pakistani government,” Palin said. “Invading the sovereign territory of a troubled partner in the war against terrorism.”

How is it possible that all these people - liberal and conservative alike - have been caught at one point or another defending/supporting/aiding a country which has been proven TIME AFTER TIME to be in bed with terrorists?
 
Last edited:
How is it possible that all these people - liberal and conservative alike - have been caught at one point or another defending a country which has been proven TIME AFTER TIME to be in bed with terrorists?

When it come to Pakistan it's never that simple and there's a couple of points I'd like to add.

1. Just because you're the most powerful, advanced and richest nation in the world doesn't mean you can buy the loyalty of every man, woman and child in a nation and I truly feel Musharraf was not involved in this conspiracy, clearly members of the ISI were...

2. They have nuclear weapons...

Allowing any situation in which the central government, enemy or ally (relatively speaking) to collapse would create perilous security situation.

Pakistan is a bitch, but with the equivalent of an Ex who has the ability to destroy your current marriage.
 
When it come to Pakistan it's never that simple and there's a couple of points I'd like to add.

1. Just because you're the most powerful, advanced and richest nation in the world doesn't mean you can buy the loyalty of every man, woman and child in a nation and I truly feel Musharraf was not involved in this conspiracy, clearly members of the ISI were...

2. They have nuclear weapons...

Allowing any situation in which the central government, enemy or ally (relatively speaking) to collapse would create perilous security situation.

Pakistan is a bitch, but with the equivalent of an Ex who has the ability to destroy your current marriage.

Allegiance to the American people comes first. Anyone who pays lip service to a nation supporting terrorists who attack us - while also stressing the need to fight against terrorism - is aiding & abetting.
 
Allegiance to the American people comes first. Anyone who pays lip service to a nation supporting terrorists who attack us - while also stressing the need to fight against terrorism - is aiding & abetting.

Geopolitics is never that black and white unfortunately.
 
None of this is surprising. I suppose no one would ever dare surmise that many in the administration of George Bush would not have wanted Bin Laden killed or captured too early on, which very much could have been the case at the beginning of the invasion of Afghanistan, lest the war, and all that they saw as a benefit to the growth of American power, be over much too quickly. No Bin Ladin - no war.
 
Allegiance to the American people comes first. Anyone who pays lip service to a nation supporting terrorists who attack us - while also stressing the need to fight against terrorism - is aiding & abetting.

No, they are acting in our best interests for once. You are correct they are being inconsistent, but you have your priorities backwards. Stability in Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal is crucial, titling at the terrorist windmills is not.
 
No, they are acting in our best interests for once. You are correct they are being inconsistent, but you have your priorities backwards. Stability in Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal is crucial, titling at the terrorist windmills is not.

Their stability at the cost of them helping terrorists? Where is the benefit for the US again?
 
Their stability at the cost of them helping terrorists? Where is the benefit for the US again?

The benefit is that New York city is mushroom cloud free. Paying a few billion dollars to make sure that nuclear weapons stay in the hands of people with a vested interest in the status quo is a good deal.
 
How is it possible that all these people - liberal and conservative alike - have been caught at one point or another defending/supporting/aiding a country which has been proven TIME AFTER TIME to be in bed with terrorists?

Pakistan was an early Cold War ally of the US, as we used it's struggle with India as a proxy war in ours with the Soviet Union. That almost changed post-Cold War when we discovered that they had been making nukes, but we realigned ourselves with them in the War on Terror. So Islamabad's had decades of experience telling them that they can get away with virtually anything, no matter how brutal it is (their genocide in Bangladesh) or how detrimental it is to American interests. Unfortunately, we cannot abandon them outright, because they have leverage with the Taliban that we don't and because we want to keep their nukes in stable hands. Still, our policy towards them is sloppy and unfavorable towards us, and we definitely need to take a heavier hand when dealing with future transgressions. A good start might be to sanction those in the ISI who were responsible for the protection of bin Laden, or to covertly support factions opposed to them.
 

I think its important here not to underestimate the tendancy within secuirty services, or elements within them to act of their own accord (it wasnt so long ago that British counter espionage was run by Kim Philby, A soviet agent- not to mention recent examples like the Ergenekon case in Turkey) I´ve yet to see any evidence that approval came from the top.
 
Back
Top Bottom