Posted on 08/31/2004 6:56:32 PM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Musharraf fakes an attack on himself once in a while when the U.S. starts pressuring him to crack down on Jihadis.
Musharraf is an Islamist in Secularist's clothing.
The guy in a turban whose foaming at the mouth and swinging a sword over his head while shouting "Allahu Akbar, Die Infidel" is less dangerous, because you know he's a nut, and you kill him right then and there.
But Musharraf is duplicitous. He throws America a bone once in a while, but fully supports the terrorist apparatus that's breeding in his country. He's a lot more dangerous than the Bush administration realizes.
If you enjoy spin and distortion from those who support Al Qaeda (Asia Times) and those who fear a US-Pak alliance (the author from India), take this sludge to heart.
If you want accurate data, go here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155685/posts
"The reason why the commission did not go into post-September 11 happenings ......"
Because they were investigating the events that LED UP TO 9-11.....NOT After.
LoL
"An interesting characterization."
That's one way of putting it.
Welcome to FR newbie...
We are winning in Pakistan now because we have finally got the intelligence goods and ISI cant cover for their former clients. Our FBI and CIA are on the ground Pakistan eavesdropping on all electronic communication, and that is bmaking the difference.
Musharraf is our friend. Read Tommy Franks and others' books, and they make clear Musharraf is trying to defeat the Islamicists, even though they have supporters in some communities and within the ISI.
Welcome to FR newbie...
We are winning in Pakistan now because we have finally got the intelligence goods and ISI cant cover for their former clients. Our FBI and CIA are on the ground Pakistan eavesdropping on all electronic communication, and that is bmaking the difference.
Musharraf is our friend. Read Tommy Franks and others' books, and they make clear Musharraf is trying to defeat the Islamicists, even though they have supporters in some communities and within the ISI.
Uh huh. Where's Osama Bin Laden? Where's Mullah Omar?
To all Newbies - You cannot be serious unless you assume the following:
1. You cannot question Musharraf's commitment to the war on terror
2. Having access to a GPS database and the co-ordinates of locations in Pakistan trumps facts.
3. Publications that say otherwise support Al Qaeda
4. Any facts that are uncomfortable to admit will not be discussed.
5. It's a wonderful world
Also from The Asia Times:
In God, and terror, we trust.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
That is the essence of the Republican platform
for "four more years" of the president of
permanent war. Oh, but don't ask how the "war on
terra" is actually going, with the 1,000th US
soldier about to die in Iraq, which along with
Afghanistan is in chaos; because God, and Karl
Rove's dirty tricks, are on George Bush's side.
Don't look closely, just swallow.
As
with the complementary macaroni and cheese
dinner included in the press kit, what matters
at the Republican National Convention is not the
unpalatable ingredients but the package itself.
The Republicans do indeed have a program for
their next term in office, but they are hoping
moderate American swing voters won't read the
fine print.
From the quoted article:
"How come the ISI was not aware of this all these years and became aware of
it only just before the Democratic Party's convention? "
"Why was the US public not
informed of it at that time and why were no security precautions taken? Was it because no Republican Party presidential convention was due last year? Don't ask stupid questions.
Watch the show. "
Sure you want to push this here, chief?
You stand dangerously close to exposing your true agenda.
Again.
Sure you want to push this here, chief? You stand dangerously close to exposing your true agenda. Again.
And what agenda would that be "chief?"
If I have an agenda, it is too see my country protected from Islamofascist terrorism. Now, has Asia Times published material from uber-Leftists and anti-American agitprop artists? Sure. But does that mean that one must reflexively discard every piece that gets published there? Most definitely not.
On a personal level, I'm a loyal Republican and have been ever since I can remember. There's nothing I'd like to see happen more than 4 more years of Dubya. But does that mean that I'm going to swallow every piece of news coming out on the war on terror without questioning? You can bet your ass I won't.
Now that we have gotten that out of the way, I'll respond to this article in detail below.
The Pakis were distributing nukes around the globe to all the "Axis of Evil" countries. When British intelligence uncovered it, the Pakis put all the blame on one domestic scientist, and then put him under house arrest. What a joke.
The Pakistanis created the Taliban. No one in Pakistan cares if Americans get hacked to pieces by Islamic fundamentalists. The Pakis could turn over Mullah Omar and OBL anytime they want, but there's no reason for them to do so.
You can bitch at me all you want, but the fact remains that the failure to apprehend top Al Qaeda leaders is a major failure of Bush's WOT, and something he will have to answer for in the debates.
You're also out of touch if you think the Asia Times is the only news source out there that's puzzled at America's continued support of and reluctance to crack down on Pakistan. Just about everyone else in the world is puzzled by it, including a lot of folks living here right in the good ol' US of A.
But I see clear evidence of massive and shameless manipulation by Musharraf's regime in Pakistan by using well timed arrests, military operations and intelligence leaks to make it appear as though Pakistan is making big progress in the war on terror.
Musharraf has made a calculation that given that this is an election year and the fact that the war on terror is the main pillar of Bush's re-election platform, no American official would dare publicly question Pakistan's assertions regarding arrests of "top" terrorists or thwarting of "major attacks." I suggest you compare notes with the media reports now and in early 2002 during the Daniel Pearl murder saga. In the Pearl case, if the Paks gave out a bogus sounding report, it was immediately repudiated by American officials. Now, anything and everything the Paks are saying is taken as gospel.
Consider the case of Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan the Al Qaeda "computer genius." First the Pakistan information minister said that this guy was arrested a few days ago. The Pakistan Interior minister denied that they ever had this guy or even the existence, when it was even acknowledged by Condi Rice. Then we find out that his name was leaked not by Americans but by the Paks. I'm told reliably that the Military Spokesman Shaukat Sultan was the "leaker." Sure this guy had loads of data in posession, but how is it that he operated for years under Pakistani noses?
Consider what Raman says about KSM. How in the heck was this guy able to hide in Pakistan, that too in Rawalpindi where every other house is that of an Army officer. If KSM killed Daniel Pearl, then what were his ties to Omar Sheikh, the man in jail for Pearl's killing. Everyone knows Omar Sheikh was an ISI "asset," so what does that make KSM? What are his ties to the ISI? If KSM was the main planner of 9/11, then what role did the ISI have in that plan?
These are serious questions that need to be answered. Do I believe that Raman went over the board in insinuating that the Bush administration is in league with Musharraf? Yes. But are there questions about Musharraf, ISI, 9/11 and ties to Al Qaeda that need to be ansewered? Yes to that as well.
Listen, we know that the bad guys are planning attacks on American soil and they most likely have some plans in operation for a while. But relying on this IV drip style of periodic and episodic release of AQ terrorists from the ISI kitty is foolhardy. AQ leaders are not in the mythical tribal ares but in Karachi, Rawalpindi, Lahore, Faisalabad and Gujrat. To that end we need to remove the velvet gloves and squeeze the Paks harder - much harder. If not, we may pay a big price.
Totally agree with everything you posted.
For now, what's best for Musharraf is keeping his administration in the good graces of the Bush administration.
The situation is fluid, but at this moment, our interests compliment each other. We have the carrots and the sticks to keep it that way for quite a while.
He's an ally in that limited way, and its a workable situation for the time being. I don't particularly care what his personal motivations are as long as he delivers.
The Pakis could turn over Mullah Omar and OBL anytime they want, but there's no reason for them to do so.
You have not one shred of evidence to back this statement up. We don’t even know that either of them are in Pakistan.
Personally, I think OBL exhaled his last stinky breath in a cave in Tora Bora around December, 2001. Of course, I’ll admit I’m speculating here.
The situation is fluid, but at this moment, our interests compliment each other. We have the carrots and the sticks to keep it that way for quite a while.
I think you mean "our interests complement each other" - in which case you are not correct. Our interests are two-fold - a) To prevent attacks on American soil as well our and allied interests abroad and b) To degrade and destroy the global Islamofascist terror infrastructure and discourage the formation of new terrorists.
Of these Musharraf only concurs with (a) in order to keep himself in our good graces. But Muharraf wants the threat of (a) to be ever-present so that his utility to us never diminishes. To that end he will do everything to discourage and deter our efforts to degrade the terror infrastructure that is now headquartered in Pakistan. It serves him well that we accept him handing over an Abdul bin terrorist once in a few weeks. He knows fully well that as long as the Pakistani madrassas, their wealthy sheikh patrons, friendly ISI members and an overall climate of jihad thrives in Pakistan, Abdul bin Terrorist will soon be replaced by Khalid bin Terroris whom he can use down the line?
Has anyone stopped to question why is it that every time an Al Qaeda #3 man is arrested in Pakistan, he gets replaced by another #3 who is arrested a few months later?
Has anyone stopped to think about why not one person who enabled these AQ leaders to thrive in Pakistan has been brought to books?
If we keep playing this "Musharraf is our ally for now" game, the Pakistanis will keep milking us dry till the cows come home (sorry for the bad pun.) They have an endless supply of Al Qaeda #3s and #4s to keep us occupied. He's an ally in that limited way, and its a workable situation for the time being. I don't particularly care what his personal motivations are as long as he delivers.
The last two sentences in my previous post were quotes from "dead" which got inadvertently attached to my message. I apologize for the confusion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.