• US 'would repeat Bin Laden raid'
    63 replies, posted
[QUOTE=MagicBurrito;29998338]I haven't really been paying attention to all this politics shit; but someone told me we were paying billions of dollars to Pakistan to help us look for Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda sources, so they were just taking our money and safeguarding him is that relatively true or a rumor or is the person who told me that an idiot?[/QUOTE] That is what is assumed by many people, but I think if you look at the history, it would should you that Pakistan was not hiding Bin Laden. I gave some of the history up above. Somehow these assumptions ignore the frequent Al-Qaeda bombings in Pakistan. To put it this way, Pakistan has turned in over 500 hundred Al-Qaeda members and have received a huge influx amount of Al-Qaeda members fighting against them because of their support of the US. They don't like Al-Qaeda or the Taliban because those two groups are carrying out many acts of violence against them. [QUOTE=crackberry;29998496]I'm pretty sure that we were giving them aid, but they were kind of safeguarding him.[/QUOTE] Why would they safeguard him? What motive? Since accepting to declare war on terror and on Al-Qaeda they have suffered a massive amount of bombings, unrest within the people, violence, a far increased number of Taliban, and more negative things. It wouldn't make any sense for Pakistan to protect Al-Qaeda because the blows they suffer are far greater than the aid they receive. It would be very illogical for Pakistan to risk an overthrow of their state to protect someone who has is very clearly a threat to their state.
I didnt mean safeguarding, I meant ignoring actually [editline]22nd May 2011[/editline] but ah
Yeah, because of apathy and corruption they just ignored him. Lots of people in their country didn't see him as a villain and they were more concerned with their own internal affairs. Then people take cash from Al Qaeda and turn a blind eye if they figure something out.
Obama is quickly becoming one of my favorite presidents
wow no shit
The real danger in the conspiracy that Pakistan was hiding Bin Laden is that it is going to be used as a justification to invade Pakistan. If you look how the news played out, it went from. It was a joint operation between the US and Pakistan It was just a US led mission Pakistan may have been hiding him Pakistan was hiding him Pakistan was hiding and is a threat to America and democracy In an interview with a Pakistani official. [release]“We have been sharing everything with them, but they have been selectively sharing with us,” the official said. “They are entirely dependent on what we provided them. Why were details (of the operation) not shared with us?” In response, CIA operatives reported that sharing details of the operation to supposedly capture bin Laden could have compromised the entire operation — but Pakistan officials seem to disagree. Sardar Latif Khosa, governor of Pakistan’s populous Punjab province, said Wednesday that bin Laden was not only responsible for deaths in the United States but also those of thousands of Pakistanis. “Osama’s hands were colored with the blood of innocent people. How could we give shelter to him?”[/release] I really believe that the CIA is not to be trusted in any of their assessments because they have blatantly lied about WMDs in Iraq to start a war. I believe much of the new opinions put out by CIA reflect their intentions in creating a case to justify a war with Pakistan by making huge lies about Pakistani efforts against Al-Qaeda. [QUOTE=Devodiere;29998593]Yeah, because of apathy and corruption they just ignored him. Lots of people in their country didn't see him as a villain and they were more concerned with their own internal affairs. Then people take cash from Al Qaeda and turn a blind eye if they figure something out.[/QUOTE] Take a second and say that out loud. Sounds like complete conspiracy theory.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;29998593]Then people take cash from Al Qaeda and turn a blind eye if they figure something out.[/QUOTE] Al Qaeda makes far less than middle eastern government officials are you kidding me.
[QUOTE=Chilean;29998857]Al Qaeda makes far less than middle eastern government officials are you kidding me.[/QUOTE] Al Qaeda have cash. Paying off officials isn't that expensive either as give a few bribes to the right guy in the intelligence community and no-one is interested in you. Probably not possible in the US or wherever else but these guys aren't the peak of integrity and they didn't really give a fuck anyway. [editline]23rd May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Pepin;29998756]Take a second and say that out loud. Sounds like complete conspiracy theory.[/QUOTE] Conspiracy theory implies there is some kind of control or intelligence in it, someone masterminding it all. This was more like their form of lobbying the government to ignore them dumping toxic waste somewhere. Just using the system to their advantage.
Besides the fact that the U.S. pretty much made fools out of Pakistan, my only question is why does Pakistan seem to be so against the idea of getting rid of terrorists in their country?
[QUOTE=Devodiere;29998953]Conspiracy theory implies there is some kind of control or intelligence in it, someone masterminding it all. This was more like their form of lobbying the government to ignore them dumping toxic waste somewhere. Just using the system to their advantage.[/QUOTE] The first rule of a conspiracy theory is to ignore contrary evidence and then to restate the point as though it is somehow still valid. I edited my post somewhere above.
[QUOTE=DanTehMan;29999072]Besides the fact that the U.S. pretty much made fools out of Pakistan, my only question is why does Pakistan seem to be so against the idea of getting rid of terrorists in their country?[/QUOTE] They're against the US coming onto their soil and carrying out raids as they please without even informing them of it. Makes them seem like just an extension of the US where they can do as they please. Pakistan wants to assert that they are their own country free from the US and if they wish to operate in their country, they must get their permission. Terrorists have nothing to do with it really. [editline]23rd May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Pepin;29999090]The first rule of a conspiracy theory is to ignore contrary evidence and then to restate the point as though it is somehow still valid. I edited my post somewhere above.[/QUOTE] Oh, I see what you mean. Let me assert then that I do not think Pakistan had any intent to harbour him and his presence in the country only notes the incompetence of both their intelligence and their government to work effectively. The Pakistani official claims he informed the US on everything but not all information may not have been gathered and delivered to them or the US. Additionally his claim that informing them of the raid would not have compromised it would have been an interesting experiment to see just how leaky they are. If they weren't far more concerned with killing bin Laden than pointing out how useless they were, I'm sure this would have been an option to take.
[QUOTE=Maurice;29988283]Just because "World Police" has a negative connotation to it, doesn't mean that it's a bad thing. Like Obama said, something has to be done about people aiming to kill innocent civilians.[/QUOTE] You mean like the US and it's drone strikes, buddy? What about the fucking US warcrimes, man? Or the many middle-eastern maniacs it funds like in Yemen or previously Egypt? The great American double standard. Stop thinking you have ANY moral rights over ANYONE with how much blood you have on your hands. You have as much moral authority as a sack full of steaming horseshit.
[QUOTE=Pepin;29998756]The real danger in the conspiracy that Pakistan was hiding Bin Laden is that it is going to be used as a justification to invade Pakistan. If you look how the news played out, it went from. It was a joint operation between the US and Pakistan It was just a US led mission Pakistan may have been hiding him Pakistan was hiding him Pakistan was hiding and is a threat to America and democracy In an interview with a Pakistani official. [release]“We have been sharing everything with them, but they have been selectively sharing with us,” the official said. “They are entirely dependent on what we provided them. Why were details (of the operation) not shared with us?” In response, CIA operatives reported that sharing details of the operation to supposedly capture bin Laden could have compromised the entire operation — but Pakistan officials seem to disagree. Sardar Latif Khosa, governor of Pakistan’s populous Punjab province, said Wednesday that bin Laden was not only responsible for deaths in the United States but also those of thousands of Pakistanis. “Osama’s hands were colored with the blood of innocent people. How could we give shelter to him?”[/release] I really believe that the CIA is not to be trusted in any of their assessments because they have blatantly lied about WMDs in Iraq to start a war. I believe much of the new opinions put out by CIA reflect their intentions in creating a case to justify a war with Pakistan by making huge lies about Pakistani efforts against Al-Qaeda. Take a second and say that out loud. Sounds like complete conspiracy theory.[/QUOTE] No, the CIA did not lie about anything about Iraq. The consensus among basically every Western intelligence agency at the time was that Iraq was in possession of WMDs or the materials to make them, i.e. yellowcake uranium. Saying they lied is just plain ignorant. But that's a debate for another thread.
[QUOTE=Canesfan;29999519]No, the CIA did not lie about anything about Iraq. The consensus among basically every Western intelligence agency at the time was that Iraq was in possession of WMDs or the materials to make them, i.e. yellowcake uranium. Saying they lied is just plain ignorant. But that's a debate for another thread.[/QUOTE] Ever heard of Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson? No? THERE'S YOUR PROBLEM!
[QUOTE=Devodiere;29999120]They're against the US coming onto their soil and carrying out raids as they please without even informing them of it. Makes them seem like just an extension of the US where they can do as they please. Pakistan wants to assert that they are their own country free from the US and if they wish to operate in their country, they must get their permission. Terrorists have nothing to do with it really. [editline]23rd May 2011[/editline] Oh, I see what you mean. Let me assert then that I do not think Pakistan had any intent to harbour him and his presence in the country only notes the incompetence of both their intelligence and their government to work effectively. The Pakistani official claims he informed the US on everything but not all information may not have been gathered and delivered to them or the US. Additionally his claim that informing them of the raid would not have compromised it would have been an interesting experiment to see just how leaky they are. If they weren't far more concerned with killing bin Laden than pointing out how useless they were, I'm sure this would have been an option to take.[/QUOTE] Last time they waited to get permission from local authorities, Osama got away.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;29999120]Oh, I see what you mean. Let me assert then that I do not think Pakistan had any intent to harbour him and his presence in the country only notes the incompetence of both their intelligence and their government to work effectively. The Pakistani official claims he informed the US on everything but not all information may not have been gathered and delivered to them or the US. Additionally his claim that informing them of the raid would not have compromised it would have been an interesting experiment to see just how leaky they are. If they weren't far more concerned with killing bin Laden than pointing out how useless they were, I'm sure this would have been an option to take.[/QUOTE] Well at least you don't think they were hiding him but are more just questioning their ability to do their job. I think we can trust Pakistan based on the history and that they would have no jeopardized the mission for a large number of reasons as given earlier. I can most certainly admit that the CIA and other US intelligence operations are likely far far more advanced and capable than any Middle East intelligence group.
[QUOTE=Canesfan;29999519]The consensus among basically every Western intelligence agency at the time was that Iraq was in possession of WMDs or the materials to make them, i.e. yellowcake uranium.[/QUOTE] [citation needed]
[QUOTE=JDK721;30000632][citation needed][/QUOTE] I think it was in the NIE, although it later came out that the report was edited in the following way: changing things like "We think that this is the case" to "This is the case", and the like.
Think about it though how would the US react if another country sent a team into America to kill someone they perceived as threat to the state
[QUOTE=Maurice;29988283]Just because "World Police" has a negative connotation to it, doesn't mean that it's a bad thing. Like Obama said, something has to be done about people aiming to kill innocent civilians.[/QUOTE] If something has to be done about killing innocent civilians, why doesn't he pull out of the middle east? I don't know how this post got 30 agrees, you lot must be in your own world right now.
[QUOTE=Stany01;30000785]If something has to be done about killing innocent civilians, why doesn't he pull out of the middle east? I don't know how this post got 30 agrees, you lot must be in your own world right now.[/QUOTE] It really shows how the opinion of many really isn't based in actual ideals, but rather an opposition of one group and a support of another. Obama's foreign policy is worse than Bush's and in an increase in military spending, a third war, still trying to shape the Middle East, and so on. The same people that opposed Bush's foreign policy essentially support the same exact policy under a new president. It isn't as if the rhetoric has changed because it is all based in "terrorism", "democracy", and "freedom". [url=http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Emheaney/Partisan_Dynamics_of_Contention.pdf]What really supports this is that antiwar protest attendance have gone down from 100,000 to 10,00 within the first three months of Obama's presidency, and has leveled off at around a level of 100 as of October 09[/url]. What's interesting is that the same study show's a lowered confidence in Obama's ability to manage the war through the same period of time, and you'd assume protest attendance to go up, but it only gets lower.
They're fighting more intelligently these days, though. But you're right, the overarching strategic plan isn't altered at all. [editline]23rd May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Stany01;30000785]If something has to be done about killing innocent civilians, why doesn't he pull out of the middle east? I don't know how this post got 30 agrees, you lot must be in your own world right now.[/QUOTE] Because even more citizens will die because the only thing keeping those states together was an authoritarian dictator and an authoritarian party. [editline]23rd May 2011[/editline] And failed states = terrorist breeding ground.
The reason it hasn't changed much is because it's not about what we want to do, it's about what must be done. Libya is not our war but we can still take action in it. Think of the many pointless genocides that have occurred in Africa, who would willingly allow another to take place just because they want to score political points? The strategy for Iraq is almost done with power being handed over to their new government while hedging their bets with a small force who can help in case the shit hits the fan. Afghanistan can be done nothing about unless you want a repeat of 1989 in which we leave the country war torn and a breeding ground for new extremists. They aren't about ideology because what is best for the country is what is wanted, partisan non-interventionalist ideals will just ruin it for them in favour of our own pride.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;29988248]US, stop being world police.[/QUOTE] Yeah, how dare they stop terrorists!!!
[QUOTE=Pepin;29988401]Take a second and imagine if Bush was saying this. What would you think? It really shouldn't be that hard to imagine Bush saying this because the rhetoric about terrorism and freedom are the same.[/QUOTE] The thing is, no one would believe Bush and his goons. Oh we know Saddam has WMD's, Oh we know the guy who attacked our country is in Afghanistan, that's why we're only sending 20k Troops there and everyone else to Iraq... They flat out lied... Obama's all Oh he's in Pakistan? Fuck his shit up. Good game, and out and says we'd do it again? I'll stand behind a guy like that. It's not like England was hiding him, it's Pakistan, and it's painfully obvious that they're a safe haven for these idiots... I'm all for not giving Pakistan another dime, and raiding at any time to get individuals who have active plans on their tables to make attacks against civilians. Obama isn't folding his arms and saying 'Okay' because Pakistan said No! So if they want to harbor people like this, then they can expect more raids, or they can stop looking the other way from time to time and actually do something
[QUOTE=Contag;30001018]They're fighting more intelligently these days, though. But you're right, the overarching strategic plan isn't altered at all. [editline]23rd May 2011[/editline] Because even more citizens will die because the only thing keeping those states together was an authoritarian dictator and an authoritarian party. [editline]23rd May 2011[/editline] And failed states = terrorist breeding ground.[/QUOTE] You're stating that it's okay to start pre-emptive war based on what could possibly happen. What is terrorism again?
[QUOTE=Stany01;30003000]You're stating that it's okay to start pre-emptive war based on what could possibly happen. What is terrorism again?[/QUOTE] What? Where did I state that? I never put any value judgments on it. According to the US' definition states can't be terrorist :v: [B]How convenient.[/B]
[QUOTE=TheTalon;30001764]The thing is, no one would believe Bush and his goons. Oh we know Saddam has WMD's, Oh we know the guy who attacked our country is in Afghanistan, that's why we're only sending 20k Troops there and everyone else to Iraq... They flat out lied... Obama's all Oh he's in Pakistan? Fuck his shit up. Good game, and out and says we'd do it again? I'll stand behind a guy like that. It's not like England was hiding him, it's Pakistan, and it's painfully obvious that they're a safe haven for these idiots... I'm all for not giving Pakistan another dime, and raiding at any time to get individuals who have active plans on their tables to make attacks against civilians. Obama isn't folding his arms and saying 'Okay' because Pakistan said No! So if they want to harbor people like this, then they can expect more raids, or they can stop looking the other way from time to time and actually do something[/QUOTE] I look at the statements you are making and determine that the only criticism that you could make about Bush was that he didn't go far enough in the war against terror. You are a perfect example of the type of person I was outlining.
[quote]I'm all for not giving Pakistan another dime[/quote] :v: brb pakistan government collapses and the pro-islamist ISI bring about Iran 2.0 but with nukes.
[QUOTE=Contag;30006296]:v: brb pakistan government collapses and the pro-islamist ISI bring about Iran 2.0 but with nukes.[/QUOTE] Think I remember something about the US knowing that could happen and having some SEALs ready to drop in and secure all the nuclear material. They're respectful and all to them but they know what would happen if that shit got into the hands of the wrong people.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.