There is nothing unreasonable about this charge. There is abundant evidence, as we have seen here over the years, that high-level figures in the Pakistani government have favored the jihad. What would stop them from doing so? They go through the Pakistani schools about which we have heard so much: the "factories of jihad."
"Pakistan denies spies behind Indian embassy attack," from Reuters, August 1:
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan angrily rejected a New York Times report on Friday that said U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded members of Pakistan's spy agency helped plan the suicide bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul this month."We reject it. No one has given any evidence to us. It's just an allegation," foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Sadiq said.
"There's no proof for this," he told Reuters by telephone from Colombo, Sri Lanka, where South Asian leaders were meeting for a regional summit.
The New York Times this week reported that a senior official of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) confronted Pakistan earlier this month with evidence of ties of members of its Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) with al Qaeda-linked militants and their involvement in the Kabul bomb attack.
Two senior Indian diplomats were among 58 people killed in the July 7 attacks.
The newspaper reported on Thursday that unnamed U.S. government officials said communications had been intercepted between Pakistani agents and militants who carried out the attack.
Pakistani Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar, in remarks aired by Pakistan television channel on Thursday, said U.S. officials had accused ISI members of tipping off al Qaeda-linked militants before U.S. missile attacks on targets in Pakistani tribal lands....
Pakistani Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar, in remarks aired by Pakistan television channel on Thursday, said U.S. officials had accused ISI members of tipping off al Qaeda-linked militants before U.S. missile attacks on targets in Pakistani tribal lands....
In the mean time, US triples aid package for Pakistan: http://www.dawn.com/2008/07/31/nat3.htm
I'm surprised that the word 'humiliation' hasn't been used yet in Pakistan's rebuttal.
"How dare you catch us out, you've humiliated a whole nation. Jizya should fix that"
Mohammad Sadiq...
Say it 10 times real fast...heh.
Shades of De Niro on SNL...too funny!
Great.
Put it out there.
Put the scum in the ISI on the defensive.
Suggest that at some time there will be payback.
Are some in the ISI feeling a little less secure after these pressures ?
We reject it. No one has given any evidence to us. It's just an allegation," foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Sadiq said.
"There's no proof for this,
of course they would reject it you could find some one caght red d-cked in the midsts of raping a child bride and there foreign ministry would deny that children are being married as young as 9 in Pakistan
as long as a infidel was making the accusation they would deny that the sky is blue it seems that they are willing to go to any length to protect brother muslims no mater what
These denials are worth what? ZERO!
Even the lefties I know don't believe Pakistan's statements.
Remember the Indo-Paki fighting at Khargil, India several years ago? The Pakis denied any involvement, insisting that indigenous Kashmiri separatists were fighting for their freedom and that Pakistan was taking a hands-off attitude to the conflict.This was their position, even though hundreds of their regulars were being killed in the fighting and quietly buried. India, meanwhile, gave public burials to their fallen, with full military honors.
This is the difference between an honorable state and one engaged in lies and subterfuge.
Suggest that at some time there will be payback.
Since Pakistan is such a great ally in the WOT, the payback will probably be a few billion more in "aid".
Hey GW, maybe now you will start fighting to win something besides hearts and minds. Like maybe the war. Cut off all foreign aid to muslim countries.
Isn't there a hadith that says something about denying the faults of others, and Allah will forgive yours?
@Alert,
One thinks that too much can be made of intercepted calls.
I mean if a man calls himself Ali and talks to a rough & tough Taliban type ...talking about attacks and US security personnel was listening in ( a good thing ), the thing is one of enough evidence.
This in itself is not enough evidence....do you know how many Ali's there are in Pakistan....probably over 1 million...so which Ali was it?....that shop owner, that restaurant owner...that cleaner...or was it that mufti?
Can you see my point here.
No I think that our (US) administrtation had already talked (unrecorded ofcourse) to the Paks that they were going to make this statement...that it was meaningless ...and they should simply deny it.
And to smooth things over, we would triple the cash that we normally give and thrown in another F16 for free.
This is mainly a political move to appease the Indians...nudge nudge wink wink.
This is the way of the world....we all know it, Pakis' have enouhg heat from the Taliban, let's not give them too much grief...
Is naseem back ?
"hindenberg"'s posts continue to give off a whiff of Karachi or Rawalpindi, one that becomes more noticeable with each new example.
From a no-nonsense piece in the Australian press:
Tough talk to Pakistan of little use
August 2, 2008
THERE was a naivety about it, but the brutal honesty in George Bush's cross-examination of the Pakistani Prime Minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, this week was a revealing moment in the post-September 11 world.
"Who is in control of the ISI?" the US President demanded, referring to Pakistan's all-powerful Directorate of Inter-Service Intelligence by its acronym ISI.
It was a question that might well be asked in Canberra, too, given the Defence Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon's, offer to Islamabad on Wednesday of a team of Australian counterinsurgency advisers - should Islamabad ask, of course.
For several years, American and NATO military and civilian officials have been losing their tempers and thumping the desks of their Pakistani counterparts in protest about the ISI nurturing the Taliban after the attacks on New York and Washington.
The latest charge Washington had nailed to the ISI door is complicity by rogue elements in the July 7 bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, in which more than 40 people were killed and 140 injured.
But at the same time, the US has kept open the aid spigot, pouring billions into Pakistan for very dubious results since September 11. If seven years later Bush seriously needed to ask Gilani who was controlling the ISI, then Washington's aid investment is a bust.
The surprise this week was not in the American message to Pakistan, so much as the messenger. As reported by Gilani's Defence Minister, Ahmad Mukhtar, Bush accused "certain elements of the ISI of leaking information to the terrorists before they could be hit by the US or Pakistani forces".
Some in Islamabad will dismiss the slap on the wrist from Bush as of little consequence. They will be the Pakistan generals who did not need a 32-page report by the US Government Accountability Office to reveal to them earlier this year that the American effort in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan is something of a mess.
Noting US aid contributions in excess of $US2 billion ($2.11 billion) a year, the Government Accountability Office states: "The United States has not met its national security goals to destroy terrorist threats [instead,] al-Qaeda has regenerated its ability to attack the US and has successfully established a safe haven."
To convey just why Americans who were anxious about the haste with which the US war effort switched from Afghanistan to Iraq in 2002 might have taken comfort from new reports generated in Washington which told them that the terrorism business in the area of Pakistan to which Osama bin Laden and his followers had fled was actually being attended to, it is necessary to quote a wordy slab of this report.
"No comprehensive plan for meeting US national security goals in the FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas] has been developed, as stipulated by the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (2003), as called for by an independent commission (2004) and as mandated by congressional legislation (2007)," it states.
"Furthermore, Congress created the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) in 2004 specifically to develop comprehensive plans to combat terrorism. However, neither the National Security Council, the NCTC nor other executive branch departments have developed a comprehensive plan that includes all elements of national power - diplomatic, military, intelligence, development assistance, economic and law enforcement support - as called for by the various national security strategies and Congress."
The reality is that almost seven years after September 11 and the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, both counter-terrorism on the Pakistan border and the war in Afghanistan are going backwards. More foreign fighters are finding their way to Pakistan; there has been a 40 per cent rise in rebel activity on the Afghanistan side of the border since Pakistan adopted its policy of coddling, rather than combating the FATA-based militants; and, by some accounts, the ISI has a tighter grip on power in Islamabad than ever before.
The worry is that what the Islamabad generals offer as proof of a deep commitment to counter-terrorism - the loss of hundreds of its own troops in brawling on the border - could well be sacrificial window-dressing for what is a deeper commitment by some in the Islamabad establishment to terrorism.
Any doubt about the tissue-thinness of Pakistani democracy and the prospect of a genuine counter-terrorism effort evaporated last weekend, when the military intervened and reasserted its control over the ISI in a matter of just hours.
On Saturday, Gilani's administration announced that the spy and security service had been brought under civilian control. By 3am Sunday the generals had snatched it back to their bosom.
And lest Washington seriously believe Bush's description this week of Pakistan as a "vibrant democracy", a senior official in the Awami National Party which governs in the border region, Afrasiab Khattak, told the BBC: "Given the powers that Pakistan's army has enjoyed over successive civilian governments, there is no way the ISI can be made answerable to the Prime Minister."
Like giving Dracula key-card access to the blood-bank, Washington pushes virtually its entire aid for the border region to the very Pakistani military machine that it has always suspected of being in league with al-Qaeda and the other Afghan and Pakistani militias. In a region of cruel privation for a population in excess of 3 million, just 1 per cent of US funding is designated for the kind of development assistance that might win hearts and minds in the area known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.
The remaining 99 per cent goes to military and border security programs which, quite obviously, have failed. And of the 99 per cent, Islamabad was revealed last week to have twisted Washington's arm to win White House approval to redirect about $US230 million, to fritter it on upgrading Pakistan's fleet of F-16 jets - an ageing air-fleet which arguably makes no contribution to counter-terrorism.
If that's what Islamabad does with the superpower Washington's billions, imagine the ride on which it would take Fitzgibbon's proposed team of Australian advisers.
The worst policy that Australia could adopt would be to turn its back on the world. But burning money and man-power in the Pakistani furnace is not a useful contribution, either. The problem in Pakistan is not that the military and security services do not know how to run an effective counterterrorism operation - it is that they choose not to do so.
When TV anchorman Jim Lehrer put the Bush question on the ISI to Gilani after his White House visit, the Prime Minister dismissed the implication out of hand. "We would not allow that," he snapped with a certainty, which suggested that Fitzgibbons might soon get a call from Islamabad.
______________________________
Yes, in this excellent piece about the meretriciousness of that "vibrant democracy," as Bush calls it, of Pakistan, the key sentence is this:
"If seven years later Bush seriously needed to ask Gilani who was controlling the ISI, then Washington's aid investment is a bust."
That aid, I repeat -- see Selig Harrison's articles -- has not been $10 billion (that is only the military aid), but in fact $30 billion.
One billion would have been one billion too much.
Pakistan is part of the world-wide problem with Islam, and the Jihad. In that part of the world, Pakistan IS the problem.
10 nukes aimed at Pakistan would be a cheaper for the US in this so called war on terror. So called because the war needs to be really against Pakistan which is the hotbed of all terrorism.
Pakistan angrily denies charge that its spy service aided jihad attack
Always angry; a steaming, seething, boiling cauldron of islamic fury.
Oh my.
Pakistan is part of the world-wide problem with Islam, and the Jihad. In that part of the world, Pakistan IS the problem.
Posted by: Hugh at August 1, 2008 11:31 AM
But that is not what POTUS/commander-in-chief, who has included his extended family in the phony "war-on-terror", have you believe. And why should he? Even his dad was in wahhabbi pockets. The son took it only to a new level. While dad put American blood and lives to protect his extended family in Riyadh, Son, went a step ahead to finish-off the arch enemy of the extended family. So what if it meant some more American lives and blood? After all, he was now the commander-in-chief, completely at the service of the Al-Saud family. Besides, all it took to wipe Al-Saud's arch rival, were a few lies like 'WMDs' and '9/11 link'. And if Al-Sauds want to include their terrorist muslim brothers in Pakistan also as "allies", why not? After all, who funded Arbusto and Harken Energy? Who saved the corrupt and incompetent son from financial disaster? How can the Bush family forget the these generous Al-Saud favors? So what if it took a few billion dollars as aid to the trrorist allies, Pakistan and Al-Sauds? It is not going from Bush family accounts. It is the money of the same suckers, who elected Bush to white-house, and who are dispensible / at the service of Bush/Al-Sauds. Besides, Republican congress isn't going to question one of it's own. All POTUS has to do is parrot: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html So what if it is right after Ameircans are murdered?
However, looks like some Americans are trying to do something about this treason:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-bugliosi/the-prosecution-of-george_b_102427.html
Some in congress are also questioning POTUS/commander-in-chief's motives/actions:
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=280000-1
Only time will tell how much treason POTUS/commander-in-chief got away with.
And for those who cannot see, Amnesty to illegal-immigrants is a part of the same greed that motivates POTUS / Al-Saud / Pakistan ties. In any case, Americans better get use to the fact that after their votes, Americans are dispensible puppets of their politicians, no matter which party. In "Farenheit 911", Michale Moore, who am no fan of and many here dismiss as a left-wing looney, documented Bush admitting that "Votes and Money is all that matters in politics". But that admission was dismissed as smearing the POTUS, by the same suckers who elected Bush to lead them to a war costing American blood, lives and a crippling debt.
We Indians are very familiar with Islamic duplicity or taqiya, having known these scum since 9th century. The west is waking up to the green slimes only now. They take your dollars as aid, then use these to fund and train terrorists who are ready to kill you. Nice circle! You are funding your own death. In addition, the antics of green slimes require more security measures that drains your tax dollars and our rupees. Sounds to me that instead of being so defensive, the free people ought to go on the offensive and eradicate the source of terror activities.
But you don't understand IndianTiger, the green slimes work cheap! That's whats REALLY important. /scarcasim_off
Thanks for posting that Aussie article here, Hugh.
I particularly liked *this* paragraph:
"The worst policy that Australia could adopt would be to turn its back on the world.
"But burning money and man-power in the Pakistani furnace is not a useful contribution, either. "
"The problem in Pakistan is not that the military and security services do not know how to run an effective counterterrorism operation - it is that they choose not to do so."
Yep. 'Burning money and man-power in the Pakistani furnace is not a useful contribution'. Understatement of the year.
Makes me wonder whether the author, whoever he was, had read Churchill's line, from 1922, about Iraq as 'an ungrateful volcano'.
Australia has a very limited supply of both manpower and money, 'to burn', and I believe it should be carefully husbanded with a view to our own defence. Australia would be best off giving NOTHING to any Muslim entity (no more jizya to Malaysia or Indonesia!) and concentrating on carefully targeted aid and training to bolster civil society and military capacity among those of our neighbours in SE Asia and the Pacific who are NOT Muslim but, rather, Hindu, Buddhist and Christian.
*My* priorities would be: India (as a fellow commonwealth country with a long historical affinity to Australia), Singapore, Philippines, Thailand, and then Timor Lorosae and Papua-New Guinea (both majority-Christian, and in dire need of help to 'grow' civil society and capacity to fend off jihad). I would keep a long spoon and an attitude of ruthless scepticism for dealings with China; Japan and South Korea are much more congenial.
Those are the thoughts of a jihad-aware ordinary Australian citizen.
My fellow Aussie jihadwatchers: letters would be in order, ASAP, to the Defence Minister and his Shadow; to the PM and Leader of the Opposition. All hammering on a single theme - for god's sake, NO burning of men or manpower in the Pakistani furnace...or, for that matter, the Afghan furnace, either, we've sensibly quit wasting money and men in Iraq, time to quit wasting them in Afghanistan, too. It *won't" make us less of a target for jihad or sharia creep at home, not at all, but we'll have more resources to deal with them.
We've learnt whatever we're going to learn: our soldiers have discovered what jihadists are like on the battlefield, and what heavily sharia-ised societies are like (pure ugliness). We could have learnt it less expensively, by reading a few old books: say, Churchill's "The Malakand Field Force".
"hindenberg"'s posts continue to give off a whiff of Karachi or Rawalpindi, one that becomes more noticeable with each new example.
Posted by: Hugh
--
It should be hoped that a whiff doesn't turn into a gaseous mix with potentially explosive consequences. Depending on one's perspective, that is.
Taquia for sale. This is typical of islam.