Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: CIA Places Blame for Bhutto Assassination

Universal Peach





Posts: 6009
(6064 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/18/2008 at 10:38 AM
Appears to have been the work "of al-Qaeda and allies of Pakistani tribal leader Baitullah Mehsud". Musharraf had nothing to gain with Bhutto being assassinated, al-Qaeda, on the other hand, as everything to gain by threatening the stability of Pakistan. I know some will disagree with me, but they do well to consider these words from CIA director, Michael V. Hayden:

"This looks simpler the further away you get from it, and the closer you get to it, geography, history, culture all begin to intertwine and make it more complex."

in understanding the difficulties that both Musharraf and the United States have in dealing with various terrorist groups, such as al-Qaeda, that operate in Pakistan.

quote:
CIA Places Blame for Bhutto Assassination
Hayden Cites Al-Qaeda, Pakistani Fighters
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 18, 2008

The CIA has concluded that members of al-Qaeda and allies of Pakistani tribal leader Baitullah Mehsud were responsible for last month's assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, and that they also stand behind a new wave of violence threatening that country's stability, the agency's director, Michael V. Hayden, said in an interview.

Offering the most definitive public assessment by a U.S. intelligence official, Hayden said Bhutto was killed by fighters allied with Mehsud, a tribal leader in northwestern Pakistan, with support from al-Qaeda's terrorist network. That view mirrors the Pakistani government's assertions.

The same alliance between local and international terrorists poses a grave risk to the government of President Pervez Musharraf, a close U.S. ally in the fight against terrorism, Hayden said in 45-minute interview with The Washington Post. "What you see is, I think, a change in the character of what's going on there," he said. "You've got this nexus now that probably was always there in latency but is now active: a nexus between al-Qaeda and various extremist and separatist groups."

Hayden added, "It is clear that their intention is to continue to try to do harm to the Pakistani state as it currently exists."

Days after Bhutto's Dec. 27 assassination in the city of Rawalpindi, Pakistani officials released intercepted communications between Mehsud and his supporters in which the tribal leader praised the killing and, according to the officials, appeared to take credit for it. Pakistani and U.S. officials have declined to comment on the origin of that intercept, but the administration has until now been cautious about publicly embracing the Pakistani assessment.

Many Pakistanis have voiced suspicions that Musharraf's government played a role in Bhutto's assassination, and Bhutto's family has alleged a wide conspiracy involving government officials. Hayden declined to discuss the intelligence behind the CIA's assessment, which is at odds with that view and supports Musharraf's assertions.

"This was done by that network around Baitullah Mehsud. We have no reason to question that," Hayden said. He described the killing as "part of an organized campaign" that has included suicide bombings and other attacks on Pakistani leaders.

Some administration officials outside the agency who deal with Pakistani issues were less conclusive, with one calling the assertion "a very good assumption."

One of the officials said there was no "incontrovertible" evidence to prove or rebut the assessment.

Hayden made his statement shortly before a series of attacks occurred this week on Pakistani political figures and army units. Pakistani officials have blamed them on Mehsud's forces and other militants. On Wednesday, a group of several hundred insurgents overran a military outpost in the province of South Waziristan, killing 22 government paramilitary troops. The daring daylight raid was carried out by rebels loyal to Mehsud, Pakistani authorities said.

For more than a year, U.S. officials have been nervously watching as al-Qaeda rebuilt its infrastructure in the rugged tribal regions along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, often with the help of local sympathizers.

In recent months, U.S. intelligence officials have said, the relationship between al-Qaeda and local insurgents has been strengthened by a common antipathy toward the pro-Western Musharraf government. The groups now share resources and training facilities and sometimes even plan attacks together, they said.

"We've always viewed that to be an ultimate danger to the United States," Hayden said, "but now it appears that it is a serious base of danger to the current well-being of Pakistan."

Hayden's anxieties about Pakistan's stability are echoed by other U.S. officials who have visited Pakistan since Bhutto's assassination. White House, intelligence and Defense Department officials have held a series of meetings to discuss U.S. options in the event that the current crisis deepens, including the possibility of covert action involving Special Forces.

Hayden declined to comment on the policy meetings but said that the CIA already was heavily engaged in the region and has not shifted its officers or changed its operations significantly since the crisis began.

"The Afghan-Pakistan border region has been an area of focus for this agency since about 11 o'clock in the morning of September 11, [2001], and I really mean this," Hayden said. "We haven't done a whole lot of retooling there in the last one week, one month, three months, six months and so on. This has been up there among our very highest priorities."

Hayden said that the United States has "not had a better partner in the war on terrorism than the Pakistanis." The turmoil of the past few weeks has only deepened that cooperation, he said, by highlighting "what are now even more clearly mutual and common interests."

Hayden also acknowledged the difficulties -- diplomatic and practical -- involved in helping combat extremism in a country divided by ethnic, religious and cultural allegiances. "This looks simpler the further away you get from it," he said. "And the closer you get to it, geography, history, culture all begin to intertwine and make it more complex."

Regarding the public controversy over the CIA's harsh interrogation of detainees at secret prisons, Hayden reiterated previous agency statements that lives were saved and attacks were prevented as a result of those interrogations.

He said he does not support proposals, put forward by some lawmakers in recent weeks, to require the CIA to abide by the Army Field Manual in conducting interrogations. The manual, adopted by the Defense Department, prohibits the use of many aggressive methods, including a simulated-drowning technique known as waterboarding.

"I would offer my professional judgment that that will make us less capable in gaining the information we need," he said.

Staff writer Robin Wright and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.


 
E-Mail User
Replies:

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/18/2008 at 10:43 AM
Yeah, I can certainly see how Musharref wouldnt gain from eliminating his only real political rival. Sure makes those pesky 'elections' easier to overcome. Maybe if he wasnt holding hands with AQ and other groups, this wouldnt have happened. While AQ certainly didnt like Bhutto, theres something to be said for the ongoing relationship in Pakistan. They have not been, and never will be, allies with us. Just the other day Musharref threatened us directly. Yeah, good friends...

/just make sure that check isnt late.

[Edited on 1/18/2008 by SquatchTexas]

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3070
(3075 all sites)
Registered: 5/30/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/18/2008 at 11:17 AM
Musharref has been targeted for assassination at least nine times and those are the attempts that were detected or missed their intended target. One must also consider that the Pakistani Military/Police and government is infiltrated by Al Qaeda operatives as well as radical Muslims sympathetic to the Tailiban. Musharref needs to get in step with NATO and begin offensive operations in the Northern Providences on the border with Afghanistan in order to attrit, disrupt, harass and interdict AQ/Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The stakes are going up and nuclear weapons are the grand prize.
Failure equals holocaust!

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6009
(6064 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/18/2008 at 11:31 AM
Squatch,

You need to realize that from a historical, political and cultural perspective that Pakistan is a country that the majority of it's people have a very conservative, and fundementalist view of Islam. Now those that make all these people terrorist? No, it doesn't but it does create problems for Musharraf in his dealings with the United States and his help in fighting terrorst groups such as al-Qaeda, that he doesn't go so far that he has seen by these conservative and fundementalist Pakistanis, as being in the United States "pocket". Remember al-Qaeda and other similar terrorist groups, from a "cultural and religious" point of view, share many of views of these conservative and fundementalist Pakistanis.

One of the big reason why Bhutto was assassinated, by al-Qaeda and their allies, was that she was seen as being very "pro-Western" and worse yet, as THE handpick "PROXY" of the Bush Administration to change Pakistan into a "democratic society", and thus realize one Bush's "neo-conservative" dreams.

Truth is, whatever happens in Pakistan, will be decided by Pakistanis, and the less the United States trys to "interfer" the better. Protecting legimate American interest is one thing, trying to change another country government to suit the viewpoint of the "neo-conservatives" is entirely something else.

 
E-Mail User

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20735
(20820 all sites)
Registered: 11/26/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/18/2008 at 11:44 AM
It's a plausible story. Is it true? I don't think we'll ever know for sure.

 

____________________

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3070
(3075 all sites)
Registered: 5/30/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/18/2008 at 04:00 PM
Additionally, it is worth noting that Bhutto ignored numerous threat increase warnings as well as the counsel of her Protective services. She should not have made herself a target by standing up and allowing a mob so close to her vehicle, but then again the martyrdom syndrome runs high in Islamic culture. Perhaps she had a death wish.
 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19483
(19497 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/18/2008 at 04:17 PM
quote:
Musharref has been targeted for assassination at least nine times and those are the attempts that were detected or missed their intended target. One must also consider that the Pakistani Military/Police and government is infiltrated by Al Qaeda operatives as well as radical Muslims sympathetic to the Tailiban. Musharref needs to get in step with NATO and begin offensive operations in the Northern Providences on the border with Afghanistan in order to attrit, disrupt, harass and interdict AQ/Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The stakes are going up and nuclear weapons are the grand prize.
Failure equals holocaust!



Good analysis, Scotty, and it makes Squatch's analysis look like the Leftist whine that it is. Hard choices, yet Squatch would stop all cooperation right now with Musharraf. What the heck, maybe would should even give back the Al Qeada operatives that he helped us capture, what the heck. Besides, there is no real such thing as - cue the quotation marks - "terrorists." Nope, and Al Qeada would have been happy with a female leader of the country....yeah boy.

Unreal.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/18/2008 at 04:20 PM
What? It's not Carter or Clinton's fault?
 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/18/2008 at 04:20 PM
What? It's not Carter or Clinton's fault?
 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20735
(20820 all sites)
Registered: 11/26/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/18/2008 at 04:23 PM
quote:
What the heck, maybe would should even give back the Al Qeada operatives that he helped us capture, what the heck.

In ST's credit, I don't think he ever would have argued that supporting the terrorists was the right thing to do, while you have said "situational ethics" made it okay 20 years ago.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19483
(19497 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/18/2008 at 05:12 PM
What are you referring to , Marley?? I was against Reagan giving arms for hostages. I was for working it out so that the Iranians sent arms used to fight the communist Sandinistas, however.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/18/2008 at 05:12 PM
quote:
Good analysis, Scotty, and it makes Squatch's analysis look like the Leftist whine that it is. Hard choices, yet Squatch would stop all cooperation right now with Musharraf.


No, I would make Musharref come up with the hard choices...its either us or the terrorists. So far, he is playing both sides of the fence and you cant do that for long. Youre too much of an idiot to waste a whole lot of time on this, but Im sure Scotty understands that point.

quote:
What the heck, maybe would should even give back the Al Qeada operatives that he helped us capture, what the heck.


What has he done for us lately or the past few years for that matter? He throws some to the wolves (the other side of the fence) and you think thats working with us? Hilarious. Keep those checks coming until we figure out if he is on our side or theirs... Meanwhile he tells us to get **** ed last week... So, because he 'helped' catch a terrorist in the past, he shouldnt have to keep on helping?

quote:
Besides, there is no real such thing as - cue the quotation marks - "terrorists."


Where on earth do you get that? Nobody here has ever said that.

quote:
Nope, and Al Qeada would have been happy with a female leader of the country....yeah boy.


Thats very little of the overall issue, Mr. Nuance.

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/18/2008 at 05:15 PM
quote:
quote:
What the heck, maybe would should even give back the Al Qeada operatives that he helped us capture, what the heck.

In ST's credit, I don't think he ever would have argued that supporting the terrorists was the right thing to do, while you have said "situational ethics" made it okay 20 years ago.


Just so we are clear, I see no time either then or now to where helping terrorists was to our benefit. Its never the right thing to do. Thats been my point all along. And youre absolutely correct, Derek fully supports his situational ethics of arming them. I would suggest though that Dereks understanding of ethics is rather sparse.

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/18/2008 at 05:17 PM
quote:
What are you referring to , Marley?? I was against Reagan giving arms for hostages. I was for working it out so that the Iranians sent arms used to fight the communist Sandinistas, however.


So, you were for arming some other terrorists then?

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6009
(6064 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/18/2008 at 07:49 PM
quote:
No, I would make Musharref come up with the hard choices...its either us or the terrorists. So far, he is playing both sides of the fence and you cant do that for long.



Squatch,

You really HAVE BECOME a neo-conservative, and have every bit a limited vision as they do. Remember most people in Pakistan HATE the United States, even if they are terrorist. The fact that Musharref is helping the United States fight the terrorists there puts him in great political (and physical) risk in his own country. The fact is, HE HAS to play "both sides of the fence", as that is the "political reality" of any leader of an Islamic country, that chooses to help the United States. Bhutto forgot that concept and that's why she's dead.

[Edited on 1/19/2008 by cleaneduphippy]

 
E-Mail User

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20034
(20500 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/18/2008 at 08:10 PM
quote:
Appears to have been the work "of al-Qaeda and allies of Pakistani tribal leader Baitullah Mehsud". Musharraf had nothing to gain with Bhutto being assassinated, al-Qaeda, on the other hand, as everything to gain by threatening the stability of Pakistan. I know some will disagree with me, but they do well to consider these words from CIA director, Michael V. Hayden:

"This looks simpler the further away you get from it, and the closer you get to it, geography, history, culture all begin to intertwine and make it more complex."

in understanding the difficulties that both Musharraf and the United States have in dealing with various terrorist groups, such as al-Qaeda, that operate in Pakistan.

quote:
CIA Places Blame for Bhutto Assassination
Hayden Cites Al-Qaeda, Pakistani Fighters
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 18, 2008

The CIA has concluded that members of al-Qaeda and allies of Pakistani tribal leader Baitullah Mehsud were responsible for last month's assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, and that they also stand behind a new wave of violence threatening that country's stability, the agency's director, Michael V. Hayden, said in an interview.

Offering the most definitive public assessment by a U.S. intelligence official, Hayden said Bhutto was killed by fighters allied with Mehsud, a tribal leader in northwestern Pakistan, with support from al-Qaeda's terrorist network. That view mirrors the Pakistani government's assertions.

The same alliance between local and international terrorists poses a grave risk to the government of President Pervez Musharraf, a close U.S. ally in the fight against terrorism, Hayden said in 45-minute interview with The Washington Post. "What you see is, I think, a change in the character of what's going on there," he said. "You've got this nexus now that probably was always there in latency but is now active: a nexus between al-Qaeda and various extremist and separatist groups."

Hayden added, "It is clear that their intention is to continue to try to do harm to the Pakistani state as it currently exists."

Days after Bhutto's Dec. 27 assassination in the city of Rawalpindi, Pakistani officials released intercepted communications between Mehsud and his supporters in which the tribal leader praised the killing and, according to the officials, appeared to take credit for it. Pakistani and U.S. officials have declined to comment on the origin of that intercept, but the administration has until now been cautious about publicly embracing the Pakistani assessment.

Many Pakistanis have voiced suspicions that Musharraf's government played a role in Bhutto's assassination, and Bhutto's family has alleged a wide conspiracy involving government officials. Hayden declined to discuss the intelligence behind the CIA's assessment, which is at odds with that view and supports Musharraf's assertions.

"This was done by that network around Baitullah Mehsud. We have no reason to question that," Hayden said. He described the killing as "part of an organized campaign" that has included suicide bombings and other attacks on Pakistani leaders.

Some administration officials outside the agency who deal with Pakistani issues were less conclusive, with one calling the assertion "a very good assumption."

One of the officials said there was no "incontrovertible" evidence to prove or rebut the assessment.

Hayden made his statement shortly before a series of attacks occurred this week on Pakistani political figures and army units. Pakistani officials have blamed them on Mehsud's forces and other militants. On Wednesday, a group of several hundred insurgents overran a military outpost in the province of South Waziristan, killing 22 government paramilitary troops. The daring daylight raid was carried out by rebels loyal to Mehsud, Pakistani authorities said.

For more than a year, U.S. officials have been nervously watching as al-Qaeda rebuilt its infrastructure in the rugged tribal regions along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, often with the help of local sympathizers.

In recent months, U.S. intelligence officials have said, the relationship between al-Qaeda and local insurgents has been strengthened by a common antipathy toward the pro-Western Musharraf government. The groups now share resources and training facilities and sometimes even plan attacks together, they said.

"We've always viewed that to be an ultimate danger to the United States," Hayden said, "but now it appears that it is a serious base of danger to the current well-being of Pakistan."

Hayden's anxieties about Pakistan's stability are echoed by other U.S. officials who have visited Pakistan since Bhutto's assassination. White House, intelligence and Defense Department officials have held a series of meetings to discuss U.S. options in the event that the current crisis deepens, including the possibility of covert action involving Special Forces.

Hayden declined to comment on the policy meetings but said that the CIA already was heavily engaged in the region and has not shifted its officers or changed its operations significantly since the crisis began.

"The Afghan-Pakistan border region has been an area of focus for this agency since about 11 o'clock in the morning of September 11, [2001], and I really mean this," Hayden said. "We haven't done a whole lot of retooling there in the last one week, one month, three months, six months and so on. This has been up there among our very highest priorities."

Hayden said that the United States has "not had a better partner in the war on terrorism than the Pakistanis." The turmoil of the past few weeks has only deepened that cooperation, he said, by highlighting "what are now even more clearly mutual and common interests."

Hayden also acknowledged the difficulties -- diplomatic and practical -- involved in helping combat extremism in a country divided by ethnic, religious and cultural allegiances. "This looks simpler the further away you get from it," he said. "And the closer you get to it, geography, history, culture all begin to intertwine and make it more complex."

Regarding the public controversy over the CIA's harsh interrogation of detainees at secret prisons, Hayden reiterated previous agency statements that lives were saved and attacks were prevented as a result of those interrogations.

He said he does not support proposals, put forward by some lawmakers in recent weeks, to require the CIA to abide by the Army Field Manual in conducting interrogations. The manual, adopted by the Defense Department, prohibits the use of many aggressive methods, including a simulated-drowning technique known as waterboarding.

"I would offer my professional judgment that that will make us less capable in gaining the information we need," he said.

Staff writer Robin Wright and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.




Mehsud did not have electromagnetic pulse laser weapons, which is what hit her in the head. All the rest of the rejection of that claim was in the evidence presented under the original Bhutto thread.

 

____________________
"Mankind is a single nation" "Allah did not make you a single people so he could try you in what he gave you, to him you will all return, he will inform you where you differed". Quran Chapter 2 Sura 213

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6009
(6064 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/18/2008 at 08:36 PM
quote:
Mehsud did not have electromagnetic pulse laser weapons, which is what hit her in the head. All the rest of the rejection of that claim was in the evidence presented under the original Bhutto thread.


Wow, Gina.

I'm surprised the head of CIA "missed" that valuable piece of information. That changes everything. Seriously, Gina when was the last time you had your medications adjusted? Bhutto was assassinated by "al-Qaeda and allies of Pakistani tribal leader Baitullah Mehsud" and that's just the way it is.

 
E-Mail User

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20034
(20500 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/19/2008 at 02:08 PM
Well cleaneduphippy maybe you are still in the 60's or else you don't keep up with the news. The links to the info from the Dr. who performed surgery on her along with his statements are under the Bhutto thread, but you can believe the CIA if you want to. You can also believe all the b.s. about 9/11 if you want to totally disregarding all the scientists and others who refute that (www.patriotsquestion911.com).

 

____________________
"Mankind is a single nation" "Allah did not make you a single people so he could try you in what he gave you, to him you will all return, he will inform you where you differed". Quran Chapter 2 Sura 213

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20735
(20820 all sites)
Registered: 11/26/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/20/2008 at 10:39 PM
quote:
What are you referring to , Marley?? I was against Reagan giving arms for hostages. I was for working it out so that the Iranians sent arms used to fight the communist Sandinistas, however.

I was thinking of closer to 30 years ago, when the US was aiding the mujahedeen in Afghanistan.

quote:
Well cleaneduphippy maybe you are still in the 60's or else you don't keep up with the news. The links to the info from the Dr. who performed surgery on her along with his statements are under the Bhutto thread, but you can believe the CIA if you want to. You can also believe all the b.s. about 9/11 if you want to totally disregarding all the scientists and others who refute that (www.patriotsquestion911.com).

Your laser weapon thing is ridiculous. And if you can disregard the scientists and others who find the 'official' Sept. 11 story very believable, I think cleaneduphippy can ignore the couple who share your view.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/21/2008 at 05:40 AM
quote:
The fact that Musharref is helping the United States fight the terrorists there puts him in great political (and physical) risk in his own country.


With all due respect, CUH, this is a very naive position to take considering what Pakistan has done in the past (nuclear proliferation). Just like Saudi Arabia isnt our friend, neither is the government of Pakistan.

quote:
The fact is, HE HAS to play "both sides of the fence", as that is the "political reality" of any leader of an Islamic country, that chooses to help the United States. Bhutto forgot that concept and that's why she's dead


No she's dead because she was a threat to the dictatorship of Musharref. The last thing on earth he wanted was to lose an election. In a country as deep in turmoil as Pakistan, if AQ, Taliban or whoever wanted Musharref dead, he would be dead. He is providing a benefit to the terrorists he is harboring and cashing our checks. The best of both worlds.

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6009
(6064 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/21/2008 at 06:58 AM
quote:
With all due respect, CUH, this is a very naive position to take considering what Pakistan has done in the past (nuclear proliferation). Just like Saudi Arabia isnt our friend, neither is the government of Pakistan.



Squatch,

If anyone is being navie aroung here, it's you. You've recently seem to have a become a convert to the "school of thought" that unless an ISLAMIC leader is doing ANYTHING and EVERYTHING the United States government wants them to do, irregardless of what the the MAJORITY of that country feels and believes about the United States, that they are not a friend or an ally. Any leader of any Islamic country that helps or is a partener with United States has to keep what in mind what the MAJORITY POPULATION of their country thinks and feels about the United States, and the truth is quite often "it's a balancing act' and one that required said leader to sometimes have to play "both sides of the fence" in trying to keep the peace within his country. Unfortunately, Squatch your view of Pakistan is somewhat simplistic. and also somewhat of a "IF THEY WOULD ONLD DO WHAT WE (the United States) WANT, EVERYTHING WOULD BETTER. Hate to break to you THAT'S EXACTLY the thinking of George W. Bush and the neo-conservative crowd.

quote:
No she's dead because she was a threat to the dictatorship of Musharref. The last thing on earth he wanted was to lose an election. In a country as deep in turmoil as Pakistan, if AQ, Taliban or whoever wanted Musharref dead, he would be dead. He is providing a benefit to the terrorists he is harboring and cashing our checks. The best of both worlds.


Another IGNORANT assumption. Bhutto is dead because "al-Qaeda and allies of Pakistani tribal leader Baitullah Mehsud" did not want a WESTERNIZED Muslim WOMAN, running their country, and the fact that she was "WASHINGTON'S PROXY" just made it that much more inviting for " al-Qaeda and allies of Pakistani tribal leader Baitullah Mehsud", to kill her, as it was a wonderful way to say "eff you to George W. Bush". The fact is Squatch, if Bhutto HAD WON the election and had "once again" become PRIME MINISTER, Musharref still would have remained PRESIDENT. It's called "power sharing". Washington, wanted Bhutto as Prime Minister to give the illusion that Pakistan was becoming a Democracy (of course Bhutto government would have just as been likely to be as "corrupted" as it was in the past), and Washington wanted to keep Musharref as President, because the one thing Washington KNOWS is that Bhutto (even when she was Prime Minister in past) never had real control over the Paksitanian militery, intelligence and nuclear establishment. Bottom line, with Bhutto is power, Musharref position in Pakistan would have been that much more secure, and he knew it. Which is the REASON that Musharref DIDN'T HAVE HER assassinated.




 
E-Mail User

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/21/2008 at 07:51 AM
quote:
Squatch,

If anyone is being navie aroung here, it's you. You've recently seem to have a become a convert to the "school of thought" that unless an ISLAMIC leader is doing ANYTHING and EVERYTHING the United States government wants them to do, irregardless of what the the MAJORITY of that country feels and believes about the United States, that they are not a friend or an ally.


Im only calling it as I see it. We tend to ally ourselves with the worst possible leaders and this is no exception. I dont like being lied to and told that they are our friend when their actions are wholly in the opposite direction. Musharref cashes the checks but harbors terrorists. Im sorry, but I dont see that as a benefit to us.

quote:
Any leader of any Islamic country that helps or is a partener with United States has to keep what in mind what the MAJORITY POPULATION of their country thinks and feels about the United States, and the truth is quite often "it's a balancing act' and one that required said leader to sometimes have to play "both sides of the fence" in trying to keep the peace within his country.


Theres 'balancing act' and then theres overt support of terrorist groups. When they sell or give away more nukes again, whats the defense argument going to be?

quote:
Unfortunately, Squatch your view of Pakistan is somewhat simplistic. and also somewhat of a "IF THEY WOULD ONLD DO WHAT WE (the United States) WANT, EVERYTHING WOULD BETTER. Hate to break to you THAT'S EXACTLY the thinking of George W. Bush and the neo-conservative crowd.


I think youre missing the point... I dont give a shiat what Pakistan does. As far as Im concerned they are not our friends and our involvement with them makes us weaker in the long run. I see this whole issue as yet another huge Bush foreign policy disaster. Coddling yet another dictator that we are going to have to turn around and 'disarm' in a few years. This is typical US foreign policy under Republicans. Kiss up to your enemies, get in bed with them and then when they arent any more use to us, come up with reasons to become enemies while the reasons were there all along but we chose not to see it for some perceived benefit.

quote:
Another IGNORANT assumption.


No, its fact. He has been handed millions and millions of dollars.

quote:
Bhutto is dead because "al-Qaeda and allies of Pakistani tribal leader Baitullah Mehsud" did not want a WESTERNIZED Muslim WOMAN, running their country, and the fact that she was "WASHINGTON'S PROXY" just made it that much more inviting for " al-Qaeda and allies of Pakistani tribal leader Baitullah Mehsud", to kill her, as it was a wonderful way to say "eff you to George W. Bush". The fact is Squatch, if Bhutto HAD WON the election and had "once again" become PRIME MINISTER, Musharref still would have remained PRESIDENT. It's called "power sharing".


Yeah that would have gone swimmingly... dictators love to share power ya know. Bhutto herself said that if anything happened to her, it would be because of Musharref. I heard they caught the 15 yr old mastermind behind her assassination...

quote:
Washington, wanted Bhutto as Prime Minister to give the illusion that Pakistan was becoming a Democracy (of course Bhutto government would have just as been likely to be as "corrupted" as it was in the past),


Shiat, Ill take shenanigans over some money vs. another dictatorship friendly to terrorists anyday. I guess Im funny that way.

quote:
and Washington wanted to keep Musharref as President, because the one thing Washington KNOWS is that Bhutto (even when she was Prime Minister in past) never had real control over the Paksitanian militery, intelligence and nuclear establishment.


The point is that a military dictatorship is NOT the favorable position. Bhutto would have been an alternative to that.

quote:
Bottom line, with Bhutto is power, Musharref position in Pakistan would have been that much more secure, and he knew it. Which is the REASON that Musharref DIDN'T HAVE HER assassinated.


Well which is it? I thought the world was going to end because she would have been an elected woman in an Islamic country. Sorry, I believe he had a hand in her death, whether it was by act or omission is yet to be learned (we will probably never know). It was entirely too convenient for it to occur to someone who he had so publicly oppressed on political grounds.

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6009
(6064 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/21/2008 at 09:41 AM
Well tell me Squatch exactly what it is that Musharref should be doing, that's he not? Since Bhutto assassination the Pakistanian military has "stepped up" it's operations against al-Qaeda. The United States has a strong (but somewhat covert) presence in Pakistan, and the U.S. Special Forces units along with the Pakistanian military HAVE MADE progress in fighting al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Pakistan, and the money being given to Musharref to fight against the various groups IS being spend apporatiately for those operations. You can damn sure if it was going to the terrorists, it would be quickly shut off. As far as blaming this on a Bush, the truth is, this has been typical United States foreign policy in the Middle East since the end of WWII. Bush is doing what every other President has done since then.

Your problem is you believed Bhutto's BS. Her version of "democracy" would have only applied to maybe 10% of Pakistanians in the "elite class". Do a little research, and you'll find she and her previous governments was just as "corrupt" as any other government in Pakistan, and really didn't do more for the people of Pakistan, when SHE WAS Prime Minister of Pakistan. Also, "political parties" in Pakistan are not like "political parties" in the western world. In Pakistan, they're more "cults of personalities", whcih explains why Bhutto became head of the PPP (Pakistan Peoples Party), after her father's death, and why her 19 YEAR OLD son is now "heir apparent" to run the party (it's all about the family).

I'll give Bhutto credit she certainly knew how to "talk the talk" and convince the Condi Rice, George W. Bush and even you, that she was a "democratic beacon of hope" for Pakistan, and Washington did every thing they could to 'put her back in power". And unfortunately, it "backfired" on them. Seriously, do you think that at this point in time, than ANY conservative, fundementalist ISLAMIC country is going to ACCEPT what the Bush Administration thinks what's best for them? Anymore that type of support of any Islamic leader is somewhat a "the kiss of death" as far as al-Qaeda and it's allies are concerned.

The REALITY is, IF Pakistan WAS to have a fully democratic election at this present time, the likelyhood is that country would probably vote in some hard-core, fundementalist Islamic leader that would be more to the liking of the al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups which share a more conservative, fundementlist view of Islam. Certainly this has been the case in other Islamic countries as of late, why would it be any different in Pakistan? Which is why the United States is going to continue to support Musharref as there really is "no leader" in Pakistan who has the power to fight these terrorist groups and still hold the country together. Unfortunately with Bhutto dead, Musharref is going to have a tougher time trying to maintain control of that country. Bhutto's assassination didn't do him any good whatsoever, and he knows it.

Anyway in my NAIVE opinion, Pakistan is a way to complex a situation to think that to simply replace "the bad guy" (Musharref) with "the good girl" (Bhutto) would have really changed anything for the better. That's just IDEALISTIC, WISHFUL, thinking from those who are "TRULY NAIVE".




 
E-Mail User

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/21/2008 at 10:28 AM
quote:
Well tell me Squatch exactly what it is that Musharref should be doing, that's he not? Since Bhutto assassination the Pakistanian military has "stepped up" it's operations against al-Qaeda. The United States has a strong (but somewhat covert) presence in Pakistan, and the U.S. Special Forces units along with the Pakistanian military HAVE MADE progress in fighting al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Pakistan, and the money being given to Musharref to fight against the various groups IS being spend apporatiately for those operations. You can damn sure if it was going to the terrorists, it would be quickly shut off. As far as blaming this on a Bush, the truth is, this has been typical United States foreign policy in the Middle East since the end of WWII. Bush is doing what every other President has done since then.

Your problem is you believed Bhutto's BS. Her version of "democracy" would have only applied to maybe 10% of Pakistanians in the "elite class". Do a little research, and you'll find she and her previous governments was just as "corrupt" as any other government in Pakistan, and really didn't do more for the people of Pakistan, when SHE WAS Prime Minister of Pakistan. Also, "political parties" in Pakistan are not like "political parties" in the western world. In Pakistan, they're more "cults of personalities", whcih explains why Bhutto became head of the PPP (Pakistan Peoples Party), after her father's death, and why her 19 YEAR OLD son is now "heir apparent" to run the party (it's all about the family).

I'll give Bhutto credit she certainly knew how to "talk the talk" and convince the Condi Rice, George W. Bush and even you, that she was a "democratic beacon of hope" for Pakistan, and Washington did every thing they could to 'put her back in power". And unfortunately, it "backfired" on them. Seriously, do you think that at this point in time, than ANY conservative, fundementalist ISLAMIC country is going to ACCEPT what the Bush Administration thinks what's best for them? Anymore that type of support of any Islamic leader is somewhat a "the kiss of death" as far as al-Qaeda and it's allies are concerned.

The REALITY is, IF Pakistan WAS to have a fully democratic election at this present time, the likelyhood is that country would probably vote in some hard-core, fundementalist Islamic leader that would be more to the liking of the al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups which share a more conservative, fundementlist view of Islam. Certainly this has been the case in other Islamic countries as of late, why would it be any different in Pakistan? Which is why the United States is going to continue to support Musharref as there really is "no leader" in Pakistan who has the power to fight these terrorist groups and still hold the country together. Unfortunately with Bhutto dead, Musharref is going to have a tougher time trying to maintain control of that country. Bhutto's assassination didn't do him any good whatsoever, and he knows it.

Anyway in my NAIVE opinion, Pakistan is a way to complex a situation to think that to simply replace "the bad guy" (Musharref) with "the good girl" (Bhutto) would have really changed anything for the better. That's just IDEALISTIC, WISHFUL, thinking from those who are "TRULY NAIVE".






The ongoing problem with our State Department is that its main policy seems to be to empower oligarchies and call them democracies. The world is complex and sometimes supporting an oligarchy is the best of bad alternatives. But call it what it is. Don't pretend Bhutto is some kind of great Democratic hope. If we need to support the government of Egypt then support them, don't scold them to release prisoners while winking at the oligarchic nature of their whole society. Sometimes promoting freedom is the best policy and sometimes in the short term, freedom will make things worse. We need to have subtlety and flair in our diplomacy and I don't know what they are teaching our diplomats in school but it is not that. This has NOTHING to do with who is in the White House. The State Department apparatus is permanent. Often, whatever policy the president tries to set, they undermine it.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/21/2008 at 01:23 PM
quote:
Well tell me Squatch exactly what it is that Musharref should be doing, that's he not?


Picking a side for starters.

quote:
Since Bhutto assassination the Pakistanian military has "stepped up" it's operations against al-Qaeda.


Surrrrrree they have. Maybe they need to quit supporting them first.

quote:
The United States has a strong (but somewhat covert) presence in Pakistan, and the U.S. Special Forces units along with the Pakistanian military HAVE MADE progress in fighting al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Pakistan, and the money being given to Musharref to fight against the various groups IS being spend apporatiately for those operations.


BS.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/world/asia/24military.html

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701-02.htm

quote:
You can damn sure if it was going to the terrorists, it would be quickly shut off.


Are you insane? We gave the Taliban millions to stop Opium production.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3556

quote:
As far as blaming this on a Bush, the truth is, this has been typical United States foreign policy in the Middle East since the end of WWII. Bush is doing what every other President has done since then.


Yeah, he shouldnt be blamed for the past 8 years of status quo, war and so on. Silly me.

quote:
Your problem is you believed Bhutto's BS. Her version of "democracy" would have only applied to maybe 10% of Pakistanians in the "elite class". Do a little research, and you'll find she and her previous governments was just as "corrupt" as any other government in Pakistan, and really didn't do more for the people of Pakistan, when SHE WAS Prime Minister of Pakistan.


Strange... a whole hell of a lot of people supported her. I would think that if she was some kind of monster (not like Musharref and his dictatorship of course) that she certainly wouldnt have enjoyed the support she had. Ill take a candidate that supports the concept of Democracy over a dictator that enacts a police state any day. Why do you keep supporting this guy?

quote:
Also, "political parties" in Pakistan are not like "political parties" in the western world.


You dont say....

quote:
In Pakistan, they're more "cults of personalities", whcih explains why Bhutto became head of the PPP (Pakistan Peoples Party), after her father's death, and why her 19 YEAR OLD son is now "heir apparent" to run the party (it's all about the family).


That may be, but how is that worse than the US getting in bed with yet another military dictatorship?

quote:
I'll give Bhutto credit she certainly knew how to "talk the talk" and convince the Condi Rice, George W. Bush and even you, that she was a "democratic beacon of hope" for Pakistan, and Washington did every thing they could to 'put her back in power".


Ill ask again: Are you insane? She got no public support from the Bush administration mostly due to our relationship with Musharref. Its a question that Ive asked Derek and since you seem to support Musharref as well, Ill ask it of you: Why didnt Bush support Bhutto?

quote:
The REALITY is, IF Pakistan WAS to have a fully democratic election at this present time, the likelyhood is that country would probably vote in some hard-core, fundementalist Islamic leader that would be more to the liking of the al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups which share a more conservative, fundementlist view of Islam.


Whew! We better be careful then and keep that military dictatorship in place. Wheres Mr. Tough Choices now? I see this as one. Either keep on kissing the asses of the terrorists youre harboring or work to get them out of your country.

quote:
Certainly this has been the case in other Islamic countries as of late, why would it be any different in Pakistan? Which is why the United States is going to continue to support Musharref as there really is "no leader" in Pakistan who has the power to fight these terrorist groups and still hold the country together.


Ill make this really simple: Musharref isnt fighting anyone. He is putting on a show to say he is doing something. Hell, he threatened us the other day. Yeah, he is sure a good buddy in the war on terror.

Musharraf also said that it would be "against the sovereignty of Pakistan" to target bin laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri "without our permission."

I wonder why we dont have that permission and havent had it. Dont you?

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/01/13/musharraf_us_may_regret_co vert_ops/9886/

quote:
Unfortunately with Bhutto dead, Musharref is going to have a tougher time trying to maintain control of that country. Bhutto's assassination didn't do him any good whatsoever, and he knows it.


Yeah, Im sure he is heartbroken. Martial law worked for him before, Im sure its a tool he will use again.

quote:
Anyway in my NAIVE opinion, Pakistan is a way to complex a situation to think that to simply replace "the bad guy" (Musharref) with "the good girl" (Bhutto) would have really changed anything for the better. That's just IDEALISTIC, WISHFUL, thinking from those who are "TRULY NAIVE".


Time will tell. But youre right about one thing, Musharref is a bad guy and the sooner we acknowledge that and work with that issue, the better off its going to be. Of course, Bush is just cruising this last year in office. He isnt going to do anything meaningful on the terror front and all this is going to be for the next President to deal with.




 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 
<<  1    2  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com