So what do we do with Pakistan now?

[dario73]

They are in collusion with Al Qaida. They knew where Bin Laden was all the time.

Should USA continue sending $3 billion in aid to their country or send the SEALS after their president, military leaders and government officials?

[L00n]

kill'em all

[loco]

They are in collusion with Al Qaida. They knew where Bin Laden was all the time.

Should USA continue sending $3 billion in aid to their country or send the SEALS after their president, military leaders and government officials?

I don't know.  Isn't their president somewhat secular and somewhat Western friendly?  You wouldn't want some Islamic extremist taking power of a nation armed with nukes. 

[240 is Back]

what SHOULD we do?  Or what WILL we do?

We won't do jack shit.  we should bomb the hell outta them.

[kcballer]

Tough question when dealing with a nuclear state.  There really isn't a lot you can do, cutting aide could help send a message.  But in the end Pakistan is a poor country, Bin Laden had a lot of wealth at his disposal i'm betting he paid off most people and the threatened violence against families of anyone who spoke out.   

[George Whorewell]

Tough question when dealing with a nuclear state.  There really isn't a lot you can do, cutting aide could help send a message.  But in the end Pakistan is a poor country, Bin Laden had a lot of wealth at his disposal i'm betting he paid off most people and the threatened violence against families of anyone who spoke out.   

Translation: We should bury our heads in the sand, say sorry to Pakistan and hope for the best.

[Fury]

Tough question when dealing with a nuclear state.  There really isn't a lot you can do, cutting aide could help send a message.  But in the end Pakistan is a poor country, Bin Laden had a lot of wealth at his disposal i'm betting he paid off most people and the threatened violence against families of anyone who spoke out.  

So we should keep sending billions of dollars to a terrorist state that is actively involved in killing our soldiers. Congratulations, you just condoned the murder of American citizens.

We've sent Pakistan over $20 billion since 9/11.

The ISI is a terrorist organization. They have nukes. They're also aware that should a Pakistani nuke make its way into terrorist hands that they'll have a shitstorm the likes of which they've never seen come down on their heads.

[Fury]

Let it also be known that Pakistan, wonders of tolerance that they are, withheld all foreign flood aid from non-Muslims. Fuck them and the multi-billion dollar racket they have going. 

[Dos Equis]

They are in collusion with Al Qaida. They knew where Bin Laden was all the time.

Should USA continue sending $3 billion in aid to their country or send the SEALS after their president, military leaders and government officials?

Not sure.  They don't deserve a dime, but we need to use their air space.  They're in a good strategic location.  We don't want them becoming an open terrorist haven.  Tough call. 

[Deicide]

Not sure.  They don't deserve a dime, but we need to use their air space.  They're in a good strategic location.  We don't want them becoming an open terrorist haven.  Tough call. 

Shouldn't we just bomb them to hell?

[George Whorewell]

Shouldn't we just bomb them to hell?

QFT




Also, racist post reported.

[Soul Crusher]

Thursday 05 May 2011
Log in | Register
Telegraph.co.uk
 
HOME
NEWS
SPORT
FINANCE
COMMENT
BLOGS
CULTURE
TRAVEL
LIFESTYLE
FASHION
TECH
Jobs Dating Offers
UK
World
Politics
Obituaries
Royal Wedding
Earth
Science
Health News
Education
Celebrities
Weird News
Libya
Japan
USA
US Politics
Asia
China
Central Asia
Europe
Australasia
Middle East
Africa
South America
Pakistan
Pakistan and Osama bin Laden: How the West was conned
The ISI and its covert support of Islamist terrorism must be confronted

Powers in Pakistan: Gen Pervez Kayani, the head of the army, and Maj Gen Ahmad Shuja Pasha, head of the ISI, photographed in 2008 Photo: AFP
By Praveen Swami 10:01PM BST 03 May 2011
Follow Praveen Swami on Twitter
280 Comments
In December 1979, at the end of a meeting in which Pakistan decided to embark on a United States-backed, Saudi Arabia-funded secret war that could well have ended in its annihilation by the Soviet Union, the military dictator who ruled Pakistan offered his spymaster a Zen-like maxim. "The water in Afghanistan," Gen Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq told Lt Gen Akhtar Abdul Rehman Khan, the director general of the Inter Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), "must boil at the right temperature."
Ever since 9/11, the ISI has been seeking to keep the jihad inside Afghanistan and Pakistan warm, nurturing allies it gave birth to in the years after that meeting, while also joining the West's war against terror – the source of billions of dollars in aid and military patronage.
But Osama bin Laden's killing may mark the point where the water boiled over – destroying Pakistan's relationship with the West, and setting off a chain of events no one can predict.
Irrespective of whether bin Laden was being sheltered by the ISI or merely succeeded in evading its ineffectual counter-terrorism efforts, the challenge for Western policymakers is stark: it has become clear the ISI isn't willing or able to act against jihadists operating from its soil. Even though it is unwise to underestimate the incompetence of south Asia's under-funded, ill-trained police and intelligence services, it is hard to imagine that Pakistan's spies did not investigate just who was building a $1 million fortified complex a few hundred yards from the Pakistan Military Academy at Kakul – a potential target for Pakistani jihadists who have claimed the lives of thousands of soldiers. Bin Laden's neighbours have said the house was protected by closed-circuit cameras; that neighbours were never allowed in; that the rubbish was disposed of by burning – all of which ought to have attracted the attention of even the most indolent spies.
Last year, though, when CNN reported that bin Laden was probably living in Pakistan – the latest in a string of similar reports – Pakistan's foreign ministry insisted the claims were "baseless", and "put out to malign" the country. Back in 2009, Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan's president, even claimed to have it on good authority that bin Laden was dead.
RELATED ARTICLES
Al-Qaeda: The next generation 02 May 2011
Pakistan 'shared information since 2009' 03 May 2011
The 'good neighbours' of Osama bin Laden 03 May 2011
White House backtracks on bin Laden's death 03 May 2011
Pakistan blames intelligence failures 03 May 2011
For years, US intelligence officials have complained that Pakistan has been playing a "double game": co-operating with some elements of Western counter-terrorism efforts, while stopping short of decisive action against the jihadist movement. History helps understand just why that game was played.
After Gen Zia-ul-Haq's mysterious death in 1988, Pakistan developed what Hussain Haqqani, now his country's ambassador to the United States, has called "military rule by other means". The scholar Hasan Askari Rizvi has shown that the new system revolved around the army's collegium of commanders, who emerged as the pre-eminent institution of state.
The ISI played a key role in this set-up. Since independence in 1948, Pakistan's covert services have had an unusually important role, faced as the country was with a conventionally superior adversary to its east. In 1947-48, tribal insurgents backed by Pakistani military officers came close to seizing all of Kashmir. Later, in 1965, a more structured version of the enterprise was attempted, using Pakistani military formations. Pakistani intelligence strategists hoped this campaign – which Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first prime minister, described as an "informal war" – would open up religious and ethnic fissures, leading to the disintegration of their gargantuan adversary.
Pakistan also sought to undermine ethnic-Pashtun nationalism, which Afghanistan used to lay claim to its north-west. It cultivated Islamists exiled by Afghan Gen Muhammad Daoud Khan's secular-nationalist regime, and in July 1975, even financed an attempted coup against Daoud Khan by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the future Mujahideen leader.
Much of this doctrine was learnt in US military schools, where Pakistani officers studied the lessons of guerrilla warfare. But where America sought to prevent such wars, the scholar Stephen Cohen has pointed out, Pakistan studied these "in terms of launching a people's war against India".
Pakistan was thus ideally placed to aid the anti-communist jihad in Afghanistan, and the welter of groups it spawned to fight this campaign ended up becoming allies. In the wake of 9/11, though, it was forced to change course: the former president Musharraf has, in his memoirs, recalled being told that Pakistan would have to side with the United States, or risk being bombed back into the Stone Age.
So, what is it that Pakistan's army now wants? In 2008, when he took charge in what was a de facto coup by Pakistan's generals against their own commander-in-chief, Gen Pervez Kayani, the chief of army staff, was tasked with restoring the institution's political position, which in turn meant restoring order. His efforts brought Pakistan into conflict with America's geopolitical aims.
First, Gen Kayani sought to project influence in Afghanistan, hoping that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, as the Taliban calls itself, would act as an ally against jihadists operating against Pakistan. Figures like the Afghan jihadist leader Jalaluddin Haqqani, the ISI hoped, would temper the Pakistani jihadist coalition, called the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, in return for power. However, the Haqqani network was the most trenchant of the West's adversaries in Afghanistan, and the Tehreek-i-Taliban leader Muhammad Illyas Kashmiri, whom Pakistan fears confronting, is linked to al-Qaeda. Last year, the former Canadian diplomat Chris Alexander asserted that "without Pakistani military support, all signs are the Islamic Emirate's combat units would collapse".
Second, Gen Kayani took a hardline posture on Pakistan's traditional rival, India – a concession to domestic jihadists, who he hoped would again turn their attentions outwards. In 2008, America was reported to have confronted Pakistan's army with evidence that the ISI was involved in an attack on the Indian diplomatic mission in Kabul. Later that year, it is now known from the testimony of the Pakistani-American jihadist David Headley, the ISI facilitated the carnage in Mumbai, providing training and support for the perpetrators.
Key perpetrators of the operation, like its overall commander Sajid Mir and military architect Muhammad Muzammil Bhat, are still at large – and were not even named by Pakistani investigators before Mr Headley's revelations became public.
In recent years, though, the anti-India Lashkar-e-Taiba has also become a threat to the West. Experts like Steven Tankel have shown that its infrastructure has supported jihadist operations in Europe, Afghanistan and even Iraq. Its leader, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, who is wanted for his role in the Mumbai attack, told a prayer congregation in the city of Lahore on Monday that bin Laden "was a great person who awakened the Muslim world". Not surprisingly, the ISI has been blocking the CIA's efforts to stamp out the Lashkar – leading to the recent showdown over Raymond Davis, a US intelligence official held in Pakistan earlier this year.
Finally, Gen Kayani sought to heal the rupture between Pakistan's army and jihadist allies like the Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi – one of the legacies of President Musharraf's last years in office.
Musharraf's decision to rein in the jihadists was a response to intense pressures from within the military. Lt Gen Moinuddin Haider, interior minister under Musharraf, was among a group of establishment figures who had
come to realise that Pakistan's patronage of jihadists, though tactically expedient, deterred investors and meant real costs to the country's economy. But while Musharraf cracked down on jihadists, notably by scaling back operations in Jammu and Kashmir, he failed to build an institutional consensus around these ideas – and, as his legitimacy eroded, he proved unable to make a decisive break with the past.
Bin Laden's likely successors – the Egyptian jihad veteran Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's poet-warrior Abu Yahya al-Libi and organisational genius Saif-al-Adel – are all in Pakistan. Gen Kayani has made clear that he has no intention of moving troops into North Waziristan, where Muhammad Illyas Kashmiri's camps are training jihadists to target the West, and have demonstrated no will to go after al-Qaeda elsewhere.
For decades, Western governments have sought, in essence, to bribe Pakistan into a strategic alliance. Gen Kayani has made clear that Pakistan sees things very differently: the West's war against terror, in his view, has mired his country in an existence-threatening crisis, which the army wants out of. That is a choice neither the West, nor Pakistan's citizens, the principal victims of the jihadists on its soil,
can afford.
There are few good options from here: Pakistan and the West are entering a new and profoundly perilous stage in their relationship. Bin Laden's killing might be the end of one phase of the war on terror, but it is profoundly unlikely to be the beginning of peace.
Share:    


Pakistan
Defence »
Comment »
Personal View »
Terrorism in the UK »
Praveen Swami »
 
Osama bin Laden
 
Osama bin Laden's house
  
Inside bin Laden's lair
 
Barack Obama watched bin Laden raid
Share: 
 
 
 
ADS BY GOOGLE
British Expat New York?
Avoid British Tax. Get your pension out of the UK now! Free advice
www.forthcapital.com/Free_advice
Terrorism Studies Course
Certificate in Terrorism Studies University of St Andrew: E-learning
www.informaglobalevents. com/terrorg
Hey, Blues Guy
Wanna See How I Play A Great Blues Solo With Only 4 Notes? Watch Video
BluesGuitarUnleashed.com
281 comments
Add a comment
Comment with a Telegraph account
Login | Register with the Telegraph
Alternatively...
Comment with one of your accounts
   
Showing 25 of 281 comments Order by 
Real-time updating is enabled.
Follow with email
Follow with RSS

AcePilot101
11 minutes ago
I don't think Osama Bin Laden was hiding at the so-called mansion. It looks more like a prison to me, and maybe that's what it was - was Bin Laden under "house arrest" by the Pakistani intelligence services and military?
If that is true, did Obama know?
Pakistan is unlikely to object to what amounts to a US incursion into sovereign territory given the amount of aid that nation receives from the USA, UK and other NATO countries.
In other words, Osama was not hiding - he was hidden.
And given that he had been on dialysis for kidney failure and other medical issues, time was running out for the USA to capitalize on any credit for "capturing" the former head of Al Qaida.
Report
Recommend
 
AntonyUK
Yesterday 10:20 PM
Recommended by
1 person
You wait 10 years. 10 long years during which time a forest of varyious conspiracy theories bloom. Then, through an alleged series of activities and information accruals, the target is tracked. He is back on the radar. Almost a sitting target.

You carefully and cautiously prepare a plan. You enact a mock scenario of the target in his secret location.

You consult and discuss. You prepare time-lines.]

You determine the nature of the Operation.

You evaluate the options for manpower and logisitics.

You finalise the plan.

You issue the orders

The mission is go. The team swoop.

There, the target!

After ten years you know………absolutely KNOW THAT THE WHOLE WORLD WILL DEMAND PROOF that the quarry was captured and dealt with – they will at every corner of the globe want cast iron evidence of the target being caught – if death results they will, you know, at the very least want sight of the corpse. Not to produce that will be to ensure evermore conspiracy stories for all time. You MUST produce the evidence.

But the strike goes ahead. The elite, hand picked squad rush in . a firefight ensues. They are under orders to do the job. The target is unarmed! They can overpower him, continue the fight against his support group and still get away in the waiting choppers.

But no – they shoot him dead. They then take the corpse to an unknown location where it is photographed and washed. It is then taken by persons and methods unknown to a new location, unknown where the body.- the priceless evidence – is bagged and jettisoned in an unknown sea. For the fishes.

Good god, you really believe that? You really believe they would not preserve the evidence albeit temporarily!!

In that case, you will believe anything.
Report
Recommend
 
wanderingone
Yesterday 11:54 PM
Recommended by
1 person
Pardon this wide-eyed believer but why should they provide evidence that he's dead?

Parade the body and you create how many new Muslim lunatics, desperate for revenge for the 'insult'? (Have you seen what these people do in response to a cartoon?)

Show photographs and every conspiracy-theory nutcase (and there's plenty writing here) will say it's photoshopped.

Believe it or not, the US government may not give a monkey's behind if you believe Osama's dead or not.
Report
Recommend
 
aptitude
Yesterday 10:15 PM
Christ I worry that sometimes I go over the top with my comments but after reading the posts on this subject I feel like a village priest, talk about extreme . I'm becoming convinced most people are mentally ill and possibly that including me, which is a little worrying :-)
Report
Recommend
 
Sonny Ofthemeek
Yesterday 10:06 PM
Osama Bin Laden’s Death was Posted April 1 and 5, 2011 by “THE MEEK” on the following web pages:



http://ulocal.wpbf.com/service...
　

http://sonnyofthemeek.wordpres...

http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dMBKV...
　
　Also on
Sonny Ofthemeek - face book page and my Dream Page on OWN network

The only error was I thought he was in a bad bad place- sometimes close enough is a win. Please call for more info, thank you.
Report
Recommend
 
oldmaid
Yesterday 08:46 PM
Recommended by
3 people
Informative article. Interesting that a Pakistani Intelligence General is under the impression that both the US and UK have been aware that Bin Laden has been in the Pakistani for six years...
http://rss.infowars.com/201105...

Meanwhile back in the UK, MSM have been concentrating on the Royal wedding and now this, but funny old thing ne'er a mention of the €78 billion bailout deal has been struck with Portugal...?
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...

'Good day(s) to bury bad news'...
Report
Recommend
 
Matthew Stevens
Yesterday 07:15 PM
check out
Report
Recommend
 
timaction
Yesterday 07:10 PM
Recommended by
23 people
The Tories have no mandate to take money from me (or borrow more for our grandkids to repay) and other tax payers to give it to his foreign causes. Whether it be the £10 billion net to the EU to improve their infrastructure and pay farm subsidies, its £9 billion annual administration costs to our businesses to implement its directives/laws, the £10 billion to foreign aid and rising (£650 million to build schools in Pakistan), allowing continued mass immigration (nothing changed yet) to clog up our infrastructure and public services and we're broke. We're borrowing to support loads of foreigners. Politicians just don't get it or care. Thgey don't understand National interest, just personal interest. UKIP is the only solution.
Report
Recommend
 
orangepekoe
Yesterday 09:23 PM
Recommended by
3 people
timeaction

Maybe we should be putting a poster up at every school and hospital front door.

'Stop giving £650million to Pakistan and give it to us instead!
After all it is OUR money!'

OP
Report
Recommend
 
jebbersisback
Yesterday 06:51 PM
Recommended by
3 people
Well, if the americans think they can invade a country and murder an unarmed man, they no doubt think they can do the same anywhere.

We should tell the americans that if they do the same thing here, we will nuke them. 300 million americans are not worth the life of a single Briton.
Report
Recommend
 
wanderingone
Yesterday 11:47 PM
I recommend you look up the definitions of 'invasion' and 'incursion'.

Trust me, it will help you in future posts.
Report
Recommend
 
soysauce
Yesterday 09:36 PM
Recommended by
4 people
Shut up jebber, he died a snivelling coward, you should save your faux sympathy for the thousands of young children his money was used to indoctrinate as suicide bombers, the unbelievably cowardly use of mentally handicapped people as human bombs detonated by remote from a safe distance in arab, yes arab markets killing brother muslims. As for America after sending hundreds of thousands of their fine young men to die on the battlefields of europe in 2 world wars, I for one would not hesitate to respond to their call if ever needed.
Report
Recommend
 
dawgbyte
Yesterday 07:52 PM
Recommended by
6 people
Are you serious? Why would America do such a thing. Wake-up from your delusional nightmare.
Report
Recommend
 
hauptmann_dachs
Yesterday 07:32 PM
Recommended by
1 person
Don't be silly. He got his, and they've left us Ghadaffi as a consolation prize!
Report
Recommend
 
soysauce
Yesterday 06:46 PM
Recommended by
21 people
It seems to me after their duplicitous behaviour and rank theft of aid, how can we be anything other than in a state of war with Pakistan, would 7/7 ever have happened without the ISI,Bali or any of these atrocities? if anything they should be paying compensation to the victims not us throwing £650m at their ...."education programme" Bollocks!
Report
Recommend
 
truthseekers
Yesterday 07:54 PM
Recommended by
3 people
We seem to be forgetting it was the US/UK that destabilised this whole region in the first place - Am Islamist agenda against the Soviets - The seeds were planted by us decades ago and now they have grown up with an anti western agenda - The CIA call it blow back - The unintended consequences of previous actions - We are so arrogant in the west - We create these problems in other country's but take none of the responsibility when it blows up -
Report
Recommend
 
The Slog
Yesterday 06:46 PM
Recommended by
2 people
I think we should also confront the fact that the SAS combed that very Abbotobad neighbourhood in 2006.

It seems highly unlikely they did this as a fun exercise.

OBL is dead, there can be little doubt about that. But this story is chiefly going to be about who knew what when, and who's on whose side.

Otherwise, why trash a $35 million Chinook copter?

http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/20...
Report
Recommend
 
dipsplepskik
Yesterday 06:44 PM
Recommended by
13 people
Not very long ago did we not see a comm0n facet of Pakistan's way of doing things. Even when playing cricket !!
Report
Recommend
 
andarkian
Yesterday 06:09 PM
Recommended by
34 people
The totally duplicitous behaviour of our politicians towards this terrorist state is not only naive it is insulting to the ordinary taxpayer of the United Kingdom. We can see with our very own eyes that this corrupt nation harbours, nurtures and encourages Islamic terrorism and terrorists from within its own borders. Yet we are expected to believe that the authorities had no idea Bin Laden had built an enormous compound only yards from a major military school. In addition we have given safe haven and free benefits to many Pakistani immigrants who have no intention of becoming part of our society and in fact preach hatred of our own norms and beliefs. To add insult to injury Cameron lobs the another £650 million for 'education'. Afghanistan's leaders have identified Pakistan as the leading exponent of terrorism in the world, as has India. Time for us to isolate ourselves from this nation and stop importing their ideologically incompatible, feudal detritus.
Report
Recommend
 
dawgbyte
Yesterday 06:05 PM
Recommended by
12 people
It's unfathomable Pakistan did not know bin Laden was located in that compound. You can't tell me 12' - 18' walls with barbed wire wouldn't draw suspicion from local leaders, or people at the military school an 1/8th of a mile away. If they didn't know, then the ISI must be the most incompetent intelligence agency in the world!

Here's a couple of interesting questions for everyone to ponder: The Obama administration has known about this compound since last August, why did it take this long to plan and approve the operation? Secondly, if Obama was President in 2004, when the courier lead was generated by the CIA, would we have killed OBL this past Sunday?

My answer is NO. As soon as Obama came into office he not only eliminated the CIA's ability to use enhanced interrogation methods and Eric Holder wanted to subpoenaed CIA Agents, who had been involved in the three waterboarding incidents. Brilliant idea! NOT.
Report
Recommend
 
alanbutler79
 is that in order to keep

[dario73]

Pakistan PM Warns of 'Full Force' Response to Future U.S. Raids

Published May 09, 2011
AP

Pakistan's prime minister warned the United States Monday that his country could respond to any future U.S. raids on its soil with "full force," in the latest escalation of rhetoric in the wake of Usama bin Laden's death.

Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, like other officials in Islamabad, said the killing of bin Laden in northern Pakistan was a positive step. But, reflecting concerns that the unilateral strike violated his country's sovereignty, Gilani sent a clear message to the United States. He warned any "overt or covert" attack would be met with a "matching response" in the future.

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

Pakistani officials are taking a firm stance on the raid, as the United States analyzes the trove of evidence collected from the bin Laden compound. That evidence -- described as the largest intelligence find ever from a senior terror leader -- could lead the United States to other terrorists on Pakistani soil, once again forcing President Obama to decide whether to go around the Pakistanis to capture or kill a high-value terror target.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has said the president reserves the right to enter Pakistani territory to act against terror suspects if Pakistan will not, and reiterated that message when asked about Gilani's speech. He said Monday that while the U.S. takes Pakistanis' concerns seriously, the U.S. does "not apologize" for the raid.

"It's simply beyond doubt in his mind that he had the right and the imperative to do this," Carney said Monday.

With analysts combing through the bin Laden files for clues on the whereabouts of Al Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahiri or Taliban chief Mullah Omar, some are calling on Obama to strike again while Al Qaeda and its allies are staggering.

"We have no right to keep our troops on the defense dying, when we know where some of the highest-ranking people in the Taliban are," Bing West, former assistant defense secretary, told Fox News on Monday.

Former CIA Director Michael Hayden said that if the U.S. gets bin Laden's deputy -- presumed to be al-Zawahiri -- in its sights, "the same calculus" that was used on bin Laden should apply.

But the thought already has Pakistani leaders fuming.

Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S., told ABC's "This Week" that the Pakistani government wants to continue "joint operations," but is concerned about the nature of the raid last weekend.

"Nobody said that we didn't want Usama bin Laden taken out. What we are offended by is the violation of our sovereignty," he said. "Now, we've heard the American explanation. But at the same time, try and put yourself in the position of a Pakistani leader who has to go to votes from the same people who will turn around and say, 'You know what? You can't protect this country from American helicopters coming in.'"

U.S. officials have made clear that they did not loop in the Pakistanis on the raid out of concern that somebody would tip off bin Laden.

Asked about the Pakistanis' concerns, Carney said repeatedly Monday that the U.S. continues to view its relationship with the country as "important."

Obama, in an interview with CBS' "60 Minutes," confirmed that he did not inform Pakistani officials of the raid in advance, though he praised Pakistan's cooperation considering "we've been able to kill more terrorists on Pakistani soil than just about any place else."

However, Obama also questioned whether anybody inside the Pakistani government might have known about bin Laden's location all along.

"We were surprised that he could maintain a compound like that for that long without there being a tip-off," Obama said. "We think that there had to be some sort of support network for bin Laden inside of Pakistan. But we don't know who or what that support network was. We don't know whether there might have been some people inside of government, people outside of government, and that's something that we have to investigate and, more importantly, the Pakistani government has to investigate."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/09/pakistan-backlash-mounts-does-opportunity-new-terror-targets/

[dario73]

Pakistani Media Reportedly Outs CIA Chief

Published May 09, 2011
AP


The U.S. is investigating why Pakistani media broadcast the name of a man they said is the CIA’s Islamabad station chief and if it was an attempt to out the agent following the killing of Usama bin Laden.

The raid by U.S. Navy SEALs that resulted in the Al Qaeda leader’s death put further strain on the already tender relationship between the two countries. Pakistan has adamantly denied that it had any knowledge that bin Laden was hiding for years in a military city not far from its capital.

The alleged name of the Islamabad station chief -- one of the CIA’s most significant and sensitive assignments -- was first broadcast Friday by ARY, a private Pakistani television channel, The Wall Street Journal reported. The channel was covering a meeting between the station chief and the director of the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s spy agency.

While the Associated Press learned that the name reported was incorrect, ARY’s Islamabad bureau chief told The Journal that not broadcasting the name would have hurt the story’s credibility.

There are currently no plans to withdraw the chief from assignment, and neither the CIA nor Pakistan’s spy agency would respond to the newspaper for comment.

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

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

If the Pakistani government was behind the attempt to publicize the name it would be the second outing of its kind in the past six months.

In December, the CIA pulled its then-Islamabad chief out of Pakistan amid death threats after his name emerged publicly.

In that case, Pakistan’s Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence denied it was behind the unmasking, and warned such allegations could damage its fragile counterterrorism alliance with the U.S.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/09/pakistani-media-reportedly-outs-cia-chief/

[Roger Bacon]

Pakistan PM Warns of 'Full Force' Response to Future U.S. Raids

Published May 09, 2011
AP

Pakistan's prime minister warned the United States Monday that his country could respond to any future U.S. raids on its soil with "full force," in the latest escalation of rhetoric in the wake of Usama bin Laden's death.

Try it you dirty mother fucker... 

[tu_holmes]

Shouldn't we just bomb them to hell?

I am with this response right here.

[loco]

Thursday 05 May 2011
Log in | Register
Telegraph.co.uk
 
HOME
NEWS
SPORT
FINANCE
COMMENT
BLOGS
CULTURE
TRAVEL
LIFESTYLE
FASHION
TECH
Jobs Dating Offers
UK
World
Politics
Obituaries
Royal Wedding
Earth
Science
Health News
Education
Celebrities
Weird News
Libya
Japan
USA
US Politics
Asia
China
Central Asia
Europe
Australasia
Middle East
Africa
South America
Pakistan
Pakistan and Osama bin Laden: How the West was conned
The ISI and its covert support of Islamist terrorism must be confronted

Powers in Pakistan: Gen Pervez Kayani, the head of the army, and Maj Gen Ahmad Shuja Pasha, head of the ISI, photographed in 2008 Photo: AFP
By Praveen Swami 10:01PM BST 03 May 2011
Follow Praveen Swami on Twitter
280 Comments
In December 1979, at the end of a meeting in which Pakistan decided to embark on a United States-backed, Saudi Arabia-funded secret war that could well have ended in its annihilation by the Soviet Union, the military dictator who ruled Pakistan offered his spymaster a Zen-like maxim. "The water in Afghanistan," Gen Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq told Lt Gen Akhtar Abdul Rehman Khan, the director general of the Inter Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), "must boil at the right temperature."
Ever since 9/11, the ISI has been seeking to keep the jihad inside Afghanistan and Pakistan warm, nurturing allies it gave birth to in the years after that meeting, while also joining the West's war against terror – the source of billions of dollars in aid and military patronage.
But Osama bin Laden's killing may mark the point where the water boiled over – destroying Pakistan's relationship with the West, and setting off a chain of events no one can predict.
Irrespective of whether bin Laden was being sheltered by the ISI or merely succeeded in evading its ineffectual counter-terrorism efforts, the challenge for Western policymakers is stark: it has become clear the ISI isn't willing or able to act against jihadists operating from its soil. Even though it is unwise to underestimate the incompetence of south Asia's under-funded, ill-trained police and intelligence services, it is hard to imagine that Pakistan's spies did not investigate just who was building a $1 million fortified complex a few hundred yards from the Pakistan Military Academy at Kakul – a potential target for Pakistani jihadists who have claimed the lives of thousands of soldiers. Bin Laden's neighbours have said the house was protected by closed-circuit cameras; that neighbours were never allowed in; that the rubbish was disposed of by burning – all of which ought to have attracted the attention of even the most indolent spies.
Last year, though, when CNN reported that bin Laden was probably living in Pakistan – the latest in a string of similar reports – Pakistan's foreign ministry insisted the claims were "baseless", and "put out to malign" the country. Back in 2009, Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan's president, even claimed to have it on good authority that bin Laden was dead.
RELATED ARTICLES
Al-Qaeda: The next generation 02 May 2011
Pakistan 'shared information since 2009' 03 May 2011
The 'good neighbours' of Osama bin Laden 03 May 2011
White House backtracks on bin Laden's death 03 May 2011
Pakistan blames intelligence failures 03 May 2011
For years, US intelligence officials have complained that Pakistan has been playing a "double game": co-operating with some elements of Western counter-terrorism efforts, while stopping short of decisive action against the jihadist movement. History helps understand just why that game was played.
After Gen Zia-ul-Haq's mysterious death in 1988, Pakistan developed what Hussain Haqqani, now his country's ambassador to the United States, has called "military rule by other means". The scholar Hasan Askari Rizvi has shown that the new system revolved around the army's collegium of commanders, who emerged as the pre-eminent institution of state.
The ISI played a key role in this set-up. Since independence in 1948, Pakistan's covert services have had an unusually important role, faced as the country was with a conventionally superior adversary to its east. In 1947-48, tribal insurgents backed by Pakistani military officers came close to seizing all of Kashmir. Later, in 1965, a more structured version of the enterprise was attempted, using Pakistani military formations. Pakistani intelligence strategists hoped this campaign – which Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first prime minister, described as an "informal war" – would open up religious and ethnic fissures, leading to the disintegration of their gargantuan adversary.
Pakistan also sought to undermine ethnic-Pashtun nationalism, which Afghanistan used to lay claim to its north-west. It cultivated Islamists exiled by Afghan Gen Muhammad Daoud Khan's secular-nationalist regime, and in July 1975, even financed an attempted coup against Daoud Khan by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the future Mujahideen leader.
Much of this doctrine was learnt in US military schools, where Pakistani officers studied the lessons of guerrilla warfare. But where America sought to prevent such wars, the scholar Stephen Cohen has pointed out, Pakistan studied these "in terms of launching a people's war against India".
Pakistan was thus ideally placed to aid the anti-communist jihad in Afghanistan, and the welter of groups it spawned to fight this campaign ended up becoming allies. In the wake of 9/11, though, it was forced to change course: the former president Musharraf has, in his memoirs, recalled being told that Pakistan would have to side with the United States, or risk being bombed back into the Stone Age.
So, what is it that Pakistan's army now wants? In 2008, when he took charge in what was a de facto coup by Pakistan's generals against their own commander-in-chief, Gen Pervez Kayani, the chief of army staff, was tasked with restoring the institution's political position, which in turn meant restoring order. His efforts brought Pakistan into conflict with America's geopolitical aims.
First, Gen Kayani sought to project influence in Afghanistan, hoping that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, as the Taliban calls itself, would act as an ally against jihadists operating against Pakistan. Figures like the Afghan jihadist leader Jalaluddin Haqqani, the ISI hoped, would temper the Pakistani jihadist coalition, called the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, in return for power. However, the Haqqani network was the most trenchant of the West's adversaries in Afghanistan, and the Tehreek-i-Taliban leader Muhammad Illyas Kashmiri, whom Pakistan fears confronting, is linked to al-Qaeda. Last year, the former Canadian diplomat Chris Alexander asserted that "without Pakistani military support, all signs are the Islamic Emirate's combat units would collapse".
Second, Gen Kayani took a hardline posture on Pakistan's traditional rival, India – a concession to domestic jihadists, who he hoped would again turn their attentions outwards. In 2008, America was reported to have confronted Pakistan's army with evidence that the ISI was involved in an attack on the Indian diplomatic mission in Kabul. Later that year, it is now known from the testimony of the Pakistani-American jihadist David Headley, the ISI facilitated the carnage in Mumbai, providing training and support for the perpetrators.
Key perpetrators of the operation, like its overall commander Sajid Mir and military architect Muhammad Muzammil Bhat, are still at large – and were not even named by Pakistani investigators before Mr Headley's revelations became public.
In recent years, though, the anti-India Lashkar-e-Taiba has also become a threat to the West. Experts like Steven Tankel have shown that its infrastructure has supported jihadist operations in Europe, Afghanistan and even Iraq. Its leader, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, who is wanted for his role in the Mumbai attack, told a prayer congregation in the city of Lahore on Monday that bin Laden "was a great person who awakened the Muslim world". Not surprisingly, the ISI has been blocking the CIA's efforts to stamp out the Lashkar – leading to the recent showdown over Raymond Davis, a US intelligence official held in Pakistan earlier this year.
Finally, Gen Kayani sought to heal the rupture between Pakistan's army and jihadist allies like the Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi – one of the legacies of President Musharraf's last years in office.
Musharraf's decision to rein in the jihadists was a response to intense pressures from within the military. Lt Gen Moinuddin Haider, interior minister under Musharraf, was among a group of establishment figures who had
come to realise that Pakistan's patronage of jihadists, though tactically expedient, deterred investors and meant real costs to the country's economy. But while Musharraf cracked down on jihadists, notably by scaling back operations in Jammu and Kashmir, he failed to build an institutional consensus around these ideas – and, as his legitimacy eroded, he proved unable to make a decisive break with the past.
Bin Laden's likely successors – the Egyptian jihad veteran Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's poet-warrior Abu Yahya al-Libi and organisational genius Saif-al-Adel – are all in Pakistan. Gen Kayani has made clear that he has no intention of moving troops into North Waziristan, where Muhammad Illyas Kashmiri's camps are training jihadists to target the West, and have demonstrated no will to go after al-Qaeda elsewhere.
For decades, Western governments have sought, in essence, to bribe Pakistan into a strategic alliance. Gen Kayani has made clear that Pakistan sees things very differently: the West's war against terror, in his view, has mired his country in an existence-threatening crisis, which the army wants out of. That is a choice neither the West, nor Pakistan's citizens, the principal victims of the jihadists on its soil,
can afford.
There are few good options from here: Pakistan and the West are entering a new and profoundly perilous stage in their relationship. Bin Laden's killing might be the end of one phase of the war on terror, but it is profoundly unlikely to be the beginning of peace.
Share:    


Pakistan
Defence »
Comment »
Personal View »
Terrorism in the UK »
Praveen Swami »
 
Osama bin Laden
 
Osama bin Laden's house
  
Inside bin Laden's lair
 
Barack Obama watched bin Laden raid
Share: 
 
 
 
ADS BY GOOGLE
British Expat New York?
Avoid British Tax. Get your pension out of the UK now! Free advice
www.forthcapital.com/Free_advice
Terrorism Studies Course
Certificate in Terrorism Studies University of St Andrew: E-learning
www.informaglobalevents. com/terrorg
Hey, Blues Guy
Wanna See How I Play A Great Blues Solo With Only 4 Notes? Watch Video
BluesGuitarUnleashed.com
281 comments
Add a comment
Comment with a Telegraph account
Login | Register with the Telegraph
Alternatively...
Comment with one of your accounts
   
Showing 25 of 281 comments Order by 
Real-time updating is enabled.
Follow with email
Follow with RSS

AcePilot101
11 minutes ago
I don't think Osama Bin Laden was hiding at the so-called mansion. It looks more like a prison to me, and maybe that's what it was - was Bin Laden under "house arrest" by the Pakistani intelligence services and military?
If that is true, did Obama know?
Pakistan is unlikely to object to what amounts to a US incursion into sovereign territory given the amount of aid that nation receives from the USA, UK and other NATO countries.
In other words, Osama was not hiding - he was hidden.
And given that he had been on dialysis for kidney failure and other medical issues, time was running out for the USA to capitalize on any credit for "capturing" the former head of Al Qaida.
Report
Recommend
 
AntonyUK
Yesterday 10:20 PM
Recommended by
1 person
You wait 10 years. 10 long years during which time a forest of varyious conspiracy theories bloom. Then, through an alleged series of activities and information accruals, the target is tracked. He is back on the radar. Almost a sitting target.

You carefully and cautiously prepare a plan. You enact a mock scenario of the target in his secret location.

You consult and discuss. You prepare time-lines.]

You determine the nature of the Operation.

You evaluate the options for manpower and logisitics.

You finalise the plan.

You issue the orders

The mission is go. The team swoop.

There, the target!

After ten years you know………absolutely KNOW THAT THE WHOLE WORLD WILL DEMAND PROOF that the quarry was captured and dealt with – they will at every corner of the globe want cast iron evidence of the target being caught – if death results they will, you know, at the very least want sight of the corpse. Not to produce that will be to ensure evermore conspiracy stories for all time. You MUST produce the evidence.

But the strike goes ahead. The elite, hand picked squad rush in . a firefight ensues. They are under orders to do the job. The target is unarmed! They can overpower him, continue the fight against his support group and still get away in the waiting choppers.

But no – they shoot him dead. They then take the corpse to an unknown location where it is photographed and washed. It is then taken by persons and methods unknown to a new location, unknown where the body.- the priceless evidence – is bagged and jettisoned in an unknown sea. For the fishes.

Good god, you really believe that? You really believe they would not preserve the evidence albeit temporarily!!

In that case, you will believe anything.
Report
Recommend
 
wanderingone
Yesterday 11:54 PM
Recommended by
1 person
Pardon this wide-eyed believer but why should they provide evidence that he's dead?

Parade the body and you create how many new Muslim lunatics, desperate for revenge for the 'insult'? (Have you seen what these people do in response to a cartoon?)

Show photographs and every conspiracy-theory nutcase (and there's plenty writing here) will say it's photoshopped.

Believe it or not, the US government may not give a monkey's behind if you believe Osama's dead or not.
Report
Recommend
 
aptitude
Yesterday 10:15 PM
Christ I worry that sometimes I go over the top with my comments but after reading the posts on this subject I feel like a village priest, talk about extreme . I'm becoming convinced most people are mentally ill and possibly that including me, which is a little worrying :-)
Report
Recommend
 
Sonny Ofthemeek
Yesterday 10:06 PM
Osama Bin Laden’s Death was Posted April 1 and 5, 2011 by “THE MEEK” on the following web pages:



http://ulocal.wpbf.com/service...
　

http://sonnyofthemeek.wordpres...

http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dMBKV...
　
　Also on
Sonny Ofthemeek - face book page and my Dream Page on OWN network

The only error was I thought he was in a bad bad place- sometimes close enough is a win. Please call for more info, thank you.
Report
Recommend
 
oldmaid
Yesterday 08:46 PM
Recommended by
3 people
Informative article. Interesting that a Pakistani Intelligence General is under the impression that both the US and UK have been aware that Bin Laden has been in the Pakistani for six years...
http://rss.infowars.com/201105...

Meanwhile back in the UK, MSM have been concentrating on the Royal wedding and now this, but funny old thing ne'er a mention of the €78 billion bailout deal has been struck with Portugal...?
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...

'Good day(s) to bury bad news'...
Report
Recommend
 
Matthew Stevens
Yesterday 07:15 PM
check out
Report
Recommend
 
timaction
Yesterday 07:10 PM
Recommended by
23 people
The Tories have no mandate to take money from me (or borrow more for our grandkids to repay) and other tax payers to give it to his foreign causes. Whether it be the £10 billion net to the EU to improve their infrastructure and pay farm subsidies, its £9 billion annual administration costs to our businesses to implement its directives/laws, the £10 billion to foreign aid and rising (£650 million to build schools in Pakistan), allowing continued mass immigration (nothing changed yet) to clog up our infrastructure and public services and we're broke. We're borrowing to support loads of foreigners. Politicians just don't get it or care. Thgey don't understand National interest, just personal interest. UKIP is the only solution.
Report
Recommend
 
orangepekoe
Yesterday 09:23 PM
Recommended by
3 people
timeaction

Maybe we should be putting a poster up at every school and hospital front door.

'Stop giving £650million to Pakistan and give it to us instead!
After all it is OUR money!'

OP
Report
Recommend
 
jebbersisback
Yesterday 06:51 PM
Recommended by
3 people
Well, if the americans think they can invade a country and murder an unarmed man, they no doubt think they can do the same anywhere.

We should tell the americans that if they do the same thing here, we will nuke them. 300 million americans are not worth the life of a single Briton.
Report
Recommend
 
wanderingone
Yesterday 11:47 PM
I recommend you look up the definitions of 'invasion' and 'incursion'.

Trust me, it will help you in future posts.
Report
Recommend
 
soysauce
Yesterday 09:36 PM
Recommended by
4 people
Shut up jebber, he died a snivelling coward, you should save your faux sympathy for the thousands of young children his money was used to indoctrinate as suicide bombers, the unbelievably cowardly use of mentally handicapped people as human bombs detonated by remote from a safe distance in arab, yes arab markets killing brother muslims. As for America after sending hundreds of thousands of their fine young men to die on the battlefields of europe in 2 world wars, I for one would not hesitate to respond to their call if ever needed.
Report
Recommend
 
dawgbyte
Yesterday 07:52 PM
Recommended by
6 people
Are you serious? Why would America do such a thing. Wake-up from your delusional nightmare.
Report
Recommend
 
hauptmann_dachs
Yesterday 07:32 PM
Recommended by
1 person
Don't be silly. He got his, and they've left us Ghadaffi as a consolation prize!
Report
Recommend
 
soysauce
Yesterday 06:46 PM
Recommended by
21 people
It seems to me after their duplicitous behaviour and rank theft of aid, how can we be anything other than in a state of war with Pakistan, would 7/7 ever have happened without the ISI,Bali or any of these atrocities? if anything they should be paying compensation to the victims not us throwing £650m at their ...."education programme" Bollocks!
Report
Recommend
 
truthseekers
Yesterday 07:54 PM
Recommended by
3 people
We seem to be forgetting it was the US/UK that destabilised this whole region in the first place - Am Islamist agenda against the Soviets - The seeds were planted by us decades ago and now they have grown up with an anti western agenda - The CIA call it blow back - The unintended consequences of previous actions - We are so arrogant in the west - We create these problems in other country's but take none of the responsibility when it blows up -
Report
Recommend
 
The Slog
Yesterday 06:46 PM
Recommended by
2 people
I think we should also confront the fact that the SAS combed that very Abbotobad neighbourhood in 2006.

It seems highly unlikely they did this as a fun exercise.

OBL is dead, there can be little doubt about that. But this story is chiefly going to be about who knew what when, and who's on whose side.

Otherwise, why trash a $35 million Chinook copter?

http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/20...
Report
Recommend
 
dipsplepskik
Yesterday 06:44 PM
Recommended by
13 people
Not very long ago did we not see a comm0n facet of Pakistan's way of doing things. Even when playing cricket !!
Report
Recommend
 
andarkian
Yesterday 06:09 PM
Recommended by
34 people
The totally duplicitous behaviour of our politicians towards this terrorist state is not only naive it is insulting to the ordinary taxpayer of the United Kingdom. We can see with our very own eyes that this corrupt nation harbours, nurtures and encourages Islamic terrorism and terrorists from within its own borders. Yet we are expected to believe that the authorities had no idea Bin Laden had built an enormous compound only yards from a major military school. In addition we have given safe haven and free benefits to many Pakistani immigrants who have no intention of becoming part of our society and in fact preach hatred of our own norms and beliefs. To add insult to injury Cameron lobs the another £650 million for 'education'. Afghanistan's leaders have identified Pakistan as the leading exponent of terrorism in the world, as has India. Time for us to isolate ourselves from this nation and stop importing their ideologically incompatible, feudal detritus.
Report
Recommend
 
dawgbyte
Yesterday 06:05 PM
Recommended by
12 people
It's unfathomable Pakistan did not know bin Laden was located in that compound. You can't tell me 12' - 18' walls with barbed wire wouldn't draw suspicion from local leaders, or people at the military school an 1/8th of a mile away. If they didn't know, then the ISI must be the most incompetent intelligence agency in the world!

Here's a couple of interesting questions for everyone to ponder: The Obama administration has known about this compound since last August, why did it take this long to plan and approve the operation? Secondly, if Obama was President in 2004, when the courier lead was generated by the CIA, would we have killed OBL this past Sunday?

My answer is NO. As soon as Obama came into office he not only eliminated the CIA's ability to use enhanced interrogation methods and Eric Holder wanted to subpoenaed CIA Agents, who had been involved in the three waterboarding incidents. Brilliant idea! NOT.
Report
Recommend
 
alanbutler79
 is that in order to keep

Spam reported!   

[kcballer]

Translation: We should bury our heads in the sand, say sorry to Pakistan and hope for the best.

  

[dario73]

 

[Dos Equis]

Shouldn't we just bomb them to hell?

No.

[Fury]

Try it you dirty mother fucker... 

Hahaha, what are they going to do? Throw some more rocks at us? The only thing they excel at, like most Muslims, is blowing up women and children, shooting unarmed civilians and chopping heads off. 

[Deicide]

No.

Why not?

[Dos Equis]

Why not?

Because we don't have grounds to destroy their country. 

[Roger Bacon]

Because we don't have grounds to destroy their country. 

That didn't stop us in Iraq.

[whork25]

That didn't stop us in Iraq.