Denial, equivocation, and an attempt at damage control over Pakistan's being neither willing nor able to control its territory. From ABC News: "Pakistan Denies Bin Laden Gets a Pass"
The government of Pakistan today denied it would allow Osama bin Laden to avoid capture under terms of a peace agreement it signed with Taliban leaders in the country's North Waziristan area.
"If he is in Pakistan, today or any time later, he will be taken into custody and brought to justice," the Pakistani ambassador to the United States, Mahmud Ali Durrani, said in a statement.
The ambassador said a Pakistani military spokesman, Major General Shaukat Sultan, had been "grossly misquoted" when he told ABC News Tuesday that bin Laden would not be taken into custody "as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen." The comments were recorded in a telephone interview with ABC News.
Q. ABC News: If bin Laden or Zawahiri were there, they could stay?
A. Gen. Sultan: No one of that kind can stay. If someone is there he will have to surrender, he will have to live like a good citizen, his whereabouts, exit travel would be known to the authorities.
Q. ABC News: So, he wouldn't be taken into custody? He would stay there?
A. Gen. Sultan: No, as long as one is staying like a peaceful citizen, one would not be taken into custody. One has to stay like a peaceful citizen and not allowed to participate in any kind of terrorist activity.
General Sultan said today it was "hair splitting" to speculate whether troops would be sent in if bin Laden was found in North Waziristan.
"If someone is found there, we will see what is to be done," General Sultan said today. "Pakistan is committed to the war on terror, and of course we will go after any terrorist found to be operating here," he said.
[...]
General Sultan said today he "rejected" the idea that Pakistan had created a safe haven for terrorists.
There we go again the normal compulsive BS-ing that you ever going to get from the Islamabad clowns. It is hard to imagine Bin Laden safer in any other place than in Pakistan.
How much debt relief? How much more aid of every kind? How many more F-16s? How much more averting the gaze, as when the Taliban were nurtured and promoted, and their regime given diplomatic recognition, by Pakistan? How much more averting the gaze, as when A. Q. Khan stole nuclear secrets from Holland, and returned to Pakistan to build that "Islamic bomb" with the full cooperation and approval of Pakistan's generals, who also no doubt knew of his Nuclear Outreach to Iran and North Korea, and possibly other countries (Libya? Saudi Arabia? Egypt?) as well.
How much more?
For what? So as to pick up Bin Laden? So what? Bin Laden is replaceable. And the ranks in his group, a group no different in its promptings and ultimate goals, from a thousand other Muslim terroist groups and groupuscules, are endlesslyr eplenishable from those who believe deeply in Islam, deeply enough to participate themselves, rather than merely support in every other way, the violent Jihad to ensure the spread of the True Islam, in both Dar al-Islam in places where it needs to be enforced, and in Dar al-Harb, where Islam needs to dominate, and Muslims rule, as they have never before managed to rule.
But these are different times. Trillions in oil money, the accidental wealth, the only kind of wealth, other than the Jizyah of foreign aid supplied by the Infidels, that the Muslim peoples are able to accumulate. Tens of millions of Muslims foolishly allowed in to the Lands of the Infidels, and given every conceivable kind of assitance that Infidel welfare-states can supply: free advanced medical care of a kind impossible to receive in the Muslim world, free education of a kind impossible to receive in the Muslim world, subsidized or free housing, and what's more, a government and indigenous Infidels willing to bend over backwards, in every way, to accommodate those ungrateful, permanently hostile, Muslim migrants who claim, in a most unpleasant and distrubing and threatening way, that "we are here to stay."
And Pakistan remains what? An "ally on terror"? Because it keeps up a charade, a Musharrafian charade (he doesn't want his accountant son forced to leave Massachusetts, condemned to a future in a Muslim country), possibly to be followed by a Sharifian or Bhutto-esque charade, the same parade of generals and zamindars, employing their English, Caliban-like, the better to curse us, or to inveigle us, the Infidels.
We've had it. We've had it with all of them, including the most plausible of them, the anglophone journalists who slyly deflect all criticism of Islam, and work to prevent Infidel understanding of Islam, such as Ahmad Rashid (who in the first page or so of "Jihad" tells us that the most important meaning of that word is "a spiritual struggle" of the individual Believer to be a good Muslim -- in other words, the usual nonsense.
Support India's right to Kashmir to the hilt. Support anything India does to punish Pakistan (and Bangladesh) for their support of Muslim terrorism in India. Don't even think about it. Just choose the non-Muslim side, period. Later you can read K. S. Lal and V. S. Naipaul and Francois Gautier and Koenraad Elst. For now. just choose India.
Just wait until President Bush finds out about this. Oh boy he's gonna really......nevermind.
It must be the translation - nobody can know what the general said unless one knows contemporary Urdu...
Despicable behavior from Pakistan and our leadership, considering the anniversary is just around the corner. If true, both Pakistan and our leaders are admitting defeat.
This is not news, except maybe to dumbasses like Howard Dean and John Kerry. Even those inimitable morons George and Condi know enough to leave OBM alone.
The American military has had his position fixed since shortly after the assault on the Tora Bora caves in Afghanistan.
But it is verboten to apprehend OBM.
If we did, then Pakistan --- where the OBM approval polls runs somewhere around 100%, including among Pakistani military and intelligence personnel --- would be thrown into an Islamic frenzy that would consume the dictator Musharaf and result within a week or two the first nuclear Islamic Republic, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
(Which is inevitable anyway.)
There is no doubt in my mind that Bush has an understanding with Musharref that OBL will be off limits in Pakistan. There is no doubt that US troops in Pakistan are unacceptable to Mushi's regime and that apprehending OBL under Mushi's watch would be the tipping point for that regime. Then the nukes would belong to islamic jihadists.
So that being the case, Bush decided in 2002 not to focus on OBL. That is why he said when pressed, that OBL is just one man, and quite frankly, not someone of high importance. He changed his tune quickly to this after the Pakistan situation was explained to him by Mushi.
So the deal Mushi offered Bush was: "You can have me in power with the nukes, or you can have OBL but with the jihadists in power with the nukes."
Bush took option 1. And that is where the situation lays today.
Pakistan is a tinderbox right now and I don't know if Mushi will survive. I think that the jihadists will dispose of him soon enough and then we will really have something to talk about on JW.
Pakistan is a tinderbox right now and I don't know if Mushi will survive. I think that the jihadists will dispose of him soon enough and then we will really have something to talk about on JW.
Posted by: August22
Don't worry about the "islamic bomb" from pakistan. The second India gets word Musharaf has been overthrown one heck of a war will consume pakistan. The Indians will do what we are too scared to do. They fully realize both the risk and what inaction will cause. The nut job in iran is a bigger risk.
I first saw a cell phone with a 'record' feature in 2004. These things change human interaction.
Thankfully, the news is just hitting Pakistan.
Well, it appears his statements have been taken out of context, but the guy is saying some pretty weird, fanatical stuff... so it is understandable that such a miscommunication occured.
He stated:
" If someone is there he will have to surrender, he will have to live like a good citizen, his whereabouts, exit travel would be known to the authorities."
This sounds like their nuclear scientist, AQ Khan. He was the father of their nuclear bomb. He was going to North Korea on a regular basis. They claim they did not know he was selling nuclear secrets to them.
The world would be far safer if Pakistan was gone.
We all know this to be a fact.
Sadly, the chances are extremely high that sooner or later they will give the bomb to someone who will use it... or they will use it themselves.
It is just a matter of time and method.
Support Independence for Baluchistan
That'll get 2 birds with 1 stone -- both Pakistan and Iran.
It'll also open up a land-corridor into strategic Central Asia and its natural resources, so that they won't be under a Russian-Chinese-Iranian-Pakistani monopoly.
It'll also keep China from getting a naval base at the mouth of the Persian Gulf.
http://www.saag.org/%5Cpapers20%5Cpaper1930.html
Baluchistan covers over 40% of Pakistan's geography, and nearly 30% of Iran's. The Baluchis are believed to be descended from the Kurds, and are equally a long-suppressed people.
Using F-16s, Cobra attack helicopters and TOW missiles, Pakistan is bombing and napalming Baloch villages, to suppress their revolt.
http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/11692/index.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ti_OijKBNs
People should spread the word about their suffering, and end their agony.
Sanman
How does one more Islamic country do us any good?
The Baloch independence movement is a secular independence movement. Pakistan is using religious fanatics to combat them, and so the Baloch freedom fighters are anti-fundamentalist.
One of the reasons that Musharraf has declared a peace agreement with the Taliban, is so that he can recruit them to attack the Baloch.
Baluchi independence should be supported. The enemy of our enemy is our friend.
Infidel Pride,
I was thinking that sanman's idea is a good one.
How much more does the Pakistani Military Thugs are thinking to FOOL the World's Freedom Loving people???
NOW (always) they are saying that it was Misquoted!!!!
It is a well known fact that OBL is in a SAFE HOUSE guarded and secured by ISI(Paki Intelligence Agency) because if he is caught then all the dirty games and secret Jihad done by ISI will be brought to light.
AND Mushraff is the HEAD of that Agency.
Take all the Terrorist & Jihadi Attacks around the World YOU CAN NOTICE THAT PAKISTAN WILL BE CONNECTED IN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
FIRST WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK : RAMZI YOUSSEF WAS TRAINED AND TREATED IN PAKISTAN.
9/11 RAMZI YOUSSEF WAS THE MASTERMIND AND CONTROLLING THE CELLS FROM PAKISTAN.
7/9 BRITISH TUBE TRAIN BOMBINGS = PAKISTANIS
MUMBAI TRAIN BOMBINGS = PAKISTANIS
TRANS ATLANTIC PLOTTERS=PAKISTANIS
SPANISH TRAIN BOMBING=INSPRIATION FROM PAKISTAN TRAINING CAMPS.
AUSTRALIAN BOMBING PLOTTER=PAKISTANI
USA LODHI V/S STATE=PAKISTANI
STILL WE CALL THEM OUR ALLY:(
The world must know:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6311716871122507823&q=balochistan
I am not in the favor of supporting an Islamic Nation of any shape or color (e.g. Balouchstan). I never trust a Muslim. If Baulchstanies need our help, then they should come to our side - denounce Islam, and take on one of the hundreds of other God loving religions offered on the Market, or create a new religion of their own.
In order to defeat Islam, there is a golden rule that everyone could follow - do not buy anything what-so-ever which is coming from an Islamic country. We do not need any weapons or spend any money to defeat Islam. It is that simple. We can fight Islam at home. We have to have the will to do it.
Sanman & Arjun
Not sure whether you're still reading this, but...
Baluchi independence being a secular movement? Baluchis are as Islamic as Pathans, and Quetta, their capital, is a Taliban hotbed - right opposite Kandahar.
Also, remember that in 1971, the Mukti Bahini was also a secular movement, but look at Bangladesh today. India made a mistake by helping them gain independence - did India no good. India should have gone all the way and annexed them, and expelled all Islamists - who were Pakistani citizens at the time - to West Pakistan.
Mistake made, water under the bridge. But no need to repeat it.