Hat tip to you for a priceless post. Crisp. Precise.Rudradev wrote:We have survived the connivance of all these parties under much worse circumstances, when we were much weaker. With the wisdom of our ancestors, the courage of our people, and the virtuous sword arm of Dharma on our side we shall continue to survive it until we prevail. Jai Hind!
* Live feed from Navy Seals helmet cameras was cut off as they entered compound
* Source: Bin Laden acted 'scared' and 'completely confused' in the moments before he was shot
* Defence official claims all but one compound target were unarmed
* Iconic image of President Obama and national security aides may not have been them watching mission unfold
* Navy Seal gave codeword 'Geronimo KIA' to reveal Bin Laden was dead
* Blow-by-blow account of mission reveals steps commando team took as they went through compound
He did mention Kashmir and India a few times before 2005 (see below). Whether these threats materialized to real actions or not is not known to me.Rudradev wrote: 10) It is important to note that at this stage, OBL never said a word about jihad in Kashmir.
In fact, I don't recall him mentioning Kashmir at all until about 2005.
Bin Ladin defended the Kashmiri insurgent group Harakat-al-Unsar when it was put on the US list of terrorist groups, offering al-Qaeda's full support and appealing "to the Muslim world to provide assistance to the Kashmiri fighters." Harakat was a mujahid organization that "played a commendable role in Afghanistan and in Kashmir, also it's playing [an] important role in Islamic jihad [59].
...
In general, bin Laden seized upon every opportunity to align al-Qaeeda with Pakistan and its army vis-a-vis Kashmir issue and the overall threat from India. "Whatever Pakistan does in the matter of Kashmir we support it," bin Laden announced in 2000 [62] {The reference is from year 2006}. While the West was siding with India in ignoring "the dishonoring of thousands of Kashmiri Muslim women by India's security forces," Pakistan supported those seeking to avenge these women [63]. Pakistan's position had to be supported by all religious scholars, who would "shun differences and unite until the oppressed people of Kashmir are free from the Indian occupation and atrocities with the help of God. [64].
...
The Islamic world must support Pakistan and its army,Bin Laden said, because of the alliance between India and Israel and because "India's animosity toward Islam and Muslims in increasing with the passage of time" [66]. Noting that al-Qaeda's fighters could "create problems" not only on the borders or in Kashmir but within India itself, bin Laden reminded his readers that it was "the duty of all Muslims to carry out jihad against India". [67]
Page 112.59. Zafar Mahmood Malik, "Bin Ladin backs Harakat-al-Ansar, " Jang, 20 October 1997, pp. 7 and 8.
...
62. "Usama bin Ladin: Jihad against India 'duty' of all Muslims, Pakistan, 23 August 2006.
63. Ibid.
64. "Usama bin Ladin pens letter in support of Kashmiri Jihad," Wahdat, 8 June 1999, pp. 1 and 5.
65. "Usama bin Ladin: Jihad against India 'duty' of all Muslims, and Abu Shiraz, "Interview with Usama bin Laden," Pakistan, 20 February 1999, p 10.
66. Shiraz, "Interview with Osama bin Laden", 20 February 1999.
67. Usama bin Ladin pens letter in support of Kashmiri Jihad," Wahdat, 8 June 1999, pp. 1 and 5.
An anti-US defensive jihad was mandatory for following six reasons.
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...
4. Washington's support for countries that oppress Muslims especially Russia, China and India.
5. ...
6. ...
While reporting the Red Fort attack on December 22, 2000, sections of the foreign media described the Lashkar as a Kashmiri militant organisation. It is not. It is a Pakistani organisation based in Pakistan and operating from there. It is a member of Osama bin Laden's International Islamic Front For Jihad Against the US and Israel.
...
The activities of Osama bin Laden and his announcement of an International Islamic Front For Jihad against the US and Israel assume ominous significance in the context of his past and continuing links with the Markaz Dawa Al Irshad (the Centre For Preaching) of Pakistan and the Lashkar-e-Toiba (the Army of the Pure), its militant wing. The Markaz and the Lashkar have been involved in acts of terrorism, not only in J & K, but also in other parts of India.
The Markaz was founded in 1987, at the inspiration of Osama bin Laden, by Zafar Iqbal and Hafiz Mohammad Saeed of the University of Engineering and Technology of Lahore and Abdullah Azam of the International Islamic University, which has been funded by bin Laden. Abdullah Azam was killed in an explosion at Peshawar in 1989 and, after his death, Zafar Iqbal and Hafiz Mohammad Saeed have been leading the Markaz while continuing to teach at the University.
...
Abu Abdul Aziz, who is suspected to be none other than Osama Bin Laden, is a leading financier of the Markaz and the Lashkar and had contributed Rs.10 million for the construction of a mosque and another sum for the construction of a special guest house inside the Muridke complex of these organisations. This guest house was initially built by bin Laden as a house for his stay during his visits to Pakistan, but, after 1992, the Pakistani authorities do not allow him to stay in Pakistani territory for fear of annoying the US, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. He has, therefore, converted it into a guest house for his associates from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere visiting Pakistan.
...
While Osama bin Laden no longer attends the annual gatherings of the Markaz and the Lashkar at Muridke, he addresses them over the conference phone. Till 1995, he used to address the gathering from his hide-out in the Sudan and, since 1996, he has been doing so from Afghanistan. Addressing the last annual conference at Muridke in November, 1997, over phone from Kandahar, bin Laden said: " Those who oppose jihad are not true Muslims."
You da mansanjeevpunj wrote: I was in Kashmir for a summer training camp of the National science Talent Scholars.All along the road to Srinagar, Marijuana grows wild. It is wonderful India never enacted any law against Marijuana usage, it should never be brought under the Narco Act, as it is not a Narcotic at all, it is a healing herb often used to cure mental disorders. It works particularly well if you have been traumatised by real life agonies, and it is not addictive.The active ingredient (Tetrahydrocannabinol) is used in liquid diluted form in Homeopathic medicine, to treat schizophrenia and other mental derangements. Of course no such substance should be consumed just for the heck of it.
Great post RudradevRudradev wrote:
1) In the early 1990s, the US was full of hyperpower hubris. They had just won the cold war and destroyed the USSR, and Pakistan (via its support for the Afghan war) was appreciated as a key player in that campaign.
These times were the apex of influence for the Brzezinski/Scowcroft school of American foreign policy in the State Department, and Milt Bearden/Michael Scheuer were the victorious lions of the CIA. Many political figures of future importance, such as Madeline Allbright (and Robin Raphel further down the ranks) were rising stars under the tutelage of these worthies.
These people could do or say no wrong, as far as the US establishment was concerned. And what they were saying was that Pakistan must be THE primary US proxy in fashioning the new world order in South/Central Asia.
<snip>
Essentially the very "Great Game" ideas behind the creation of Pakistan in 1947, were seen to be "borne out" by the eventual usefulness of Pakistan in defeating the Soviet Union. Extending those same ideas, Pakistan (with Afghanistan as its vassal/strategic depth) was now going to be the launch-pad for expanding Western influence into the Asian heartland and containing America's potential competitors in that theatre.
<snip>
Hence, in the early 1990s, a multi-pronged assault was launched with the backing of Washington, to enable Pakistan to separate J&K from India. The assault had a military component, masterminded by Mirza Aslam Beg and Hamid Gul, in which Afghan war veterans and CIA expertise were used by the ISI to launch a "war of a thousand cuts" against India. It also had a political component, as evidenced by the redoubled efforts (via Robin Raphel) to build the Hurriyat Conference as a "democratic" platform for secession.
5) India at that time was seen to be a helpless state, from Washington's point of view. It was a former Soviet ally and not deserving of trust or sympathy. The strong leadership of IG was a thing of the past. India had slipped into a state of post-dynastic political turmoil following the VP Singh ascension of 1989... this was projected by Washington to mean political instability and lacklustre economic performance for the rest of the decade. To top it all off, in 1991 India had to go to the IMF with hat in hand.
Thus pressure was put on India from every direction to part with Kashmir. Our pleas to declare Pakistan a terrorist-sponsoring state were soundly ignored. We were lectured as never before on Kashmiri "human rights". When the ISI committed terrorist atrocities, such as the Mumbai '93 blasts, US investigators dutifully "misplaced" the evidence of Pakistan ORF ammunition given to them for examination. IMF strings were pulled taut whenever India made any move to assert or consolidate its regional position.
This is the first public report I am seeing that the US knew but did not care.Special report: Why the U.S. mistrusts Pakistan's spies
By then, the rebellion in Indian Kashmir had been going since 1989, and U.S. officials back in 2001 made little secret that they knew the army was training, arming and funding militants to fight there.
they may have tried. Pasha may have visited just for this purpose. But he may have been denied the opportunity to shift him to a more face-saving location because then Americans knew it could also be an excuse to ferret him out to someplace else and they may lose him as usual.BUT BUT BUT... if Pakistan AGREED to let the US snatch OBL, why did they not bargain for a more H&D-saving facade? Why did they not insist that OBL be "found in the border regions of Afghanistan" rather than the very embarrassing location of Abbotabad? Why did they not angle for more recognition of their cooperative role so that they could get generous baksheesh in reward from the US Congress? Why did they submit to a raid that makes them look so very bad, in terms of H&D, and in terms of casting suspicion on their role in harbouring OBL all these years? Why did they let SEALS cart away incriminating evidence from the location instead of delivering Bin Laden to the Americans on their own terms?
Yes and Hitler did manage to wage ideological war all over Europe till US stepped in and kicked butt. The entire Europe owes this to USA, specifically to those who died at Normandy, as that was a real turning point.Patton deserves a lot of credit too.Lalmohan wrote:hitler hated the US as a secondary thing, his real focus was on western europe and russia
obl's primary focus was the house of saud and mubarak, US was secondary
but in both cases, the US could not be ignored
I have a copy - want me to post it here or mail it to you ?Surya wrote:Guys can we have a thread for the cartoons of Pak treachery
where is that India today cartoon of years ago which showed the bombs being passed on
I need all in one place for easy dessemination
A very thorough post. Excellent analysis which brings us to a very important question. If Pakistan were asked to choose between "Crown jewels" and "Osama",Pakis would shout and cry but end of the day they would keep their crown jewels and give up Osama.BUT BUT BUT... if Pakistan AGREED to let the US snatch OBL, why did they not bargain for a more H&D-saving facade? Why did they not insist that OBL be "found in the border regions of Afghanistan" rather than the very embarrassing location of Abbotabad? Why did they not angle for more recognition of their cooperative role so that they could get generous baksheesh in reward from the US Congress? Why did they submit to a raid that makes them look so very bad, in terms of H&D, and in terms of casting suspicion on their role in harbouring OBL all these years? Why did they let SEALS cart away incriminating evidence from the location instead of delivering Bin Laden to the Americans on their own terms?
The ending of QE-2 and steadfast opposition by Congress to increase the debt limit. Bi-partisans Congress and Senate members have realized that QE saga should not be continued forever, and they want to rein in Chinese imports and bring back jobs back to US. For any confrontation with Chinty, Uncle wanted to test Pakis, because they can upset some of the calculations in middle east and central asia, so they want to test the bravado of pakis.Altair wrote:A very thorough post. Excellent analysis which brings us to a very important question. If Pakistan were asked to choose between "Crown jewels" and "Osama",Pakis would shout and cry but end of the day they would keep their crown jewels and give up Osama.
What made Unkil force Pakis to choose between Crown Jewels and Osama?? Why now?
For this, you must refer to the "Kabila theory" of Ramana ji.. The Kabila of Pakistan is held hostage by parasitic kabiledaar (TSPA).. Nothing else matters to the kabiledaar except his hold over this gypsy non-productive kabila. Wishes of Kabila are secondary (1970-71 Bengal repression, post 2001 GUBO, now this).. In 71, this attitude made them eat dust. and by Mahadev, they will eat dust this time as well.. the will of Kabila cannot be subverted for long. and This kabila wants more Islam..Altair wrote:A very thorough post. Excellent analysis which brings us to a very important question. If Pakistan were asked to choose between "Crown jewels" and "Osama",Pakis would shout and cry but end of the day they would keep their crown jewels and give up Osama.BUT BUT BUT... if Pakistan AGREED to let the US snatch OBL, why did they not bargain for a more H&D-saving facade? Why did they not insist that OBL be "found in the border regions of Afghanistan" rather than the very embarrassing location of Abbotabad? Why did they not angle for more recognition of their cooperative role so that they could get generous baksheesh in reward from the US Congress? Why did they submit to a raid that makes them look so very bad, in terms of H&D, and in terms of casting suspicion on their role in harbouring OBL all these years? Why did they let SEALS cart away incriminating evidence from the location instead of delivering Bin Laden to the Americans on their own terms?
What made Unkil force Pakis to choose between Crown Jewels and Osama?? Why now?
The whole world knows about the complicity of Pakis in 26/11 (and other terrorist events.) The denial of Pakis and the silence of the world community does not really change much. Pakis are shameless in any case.Rudradev wrote:
There is only one possible answer: the Pakis may have agreed to let the US snatch OBL on such humiliating terms because... the only alternative available to the Pakis was WORSE. Unkil has something so damaging to the Pakis, that he was able to threaten them with it, and dictate the terms of how the OBL raid was going to go... or else.
What is that "WORSE" thing? I don't know.
I have a suspicion that it might revolve around two trials currently taking place in the US, though. The trial of Tawwahur Hussein Rana in Chicago; and the trial in NY where the families of American 26/11 victims are suing the Pakistan Army and ISI. Things which could have come out in those trials and become public information, may have been even more damaging to Pakistan than the mere fact of OBL hiding in Abbotabad all these years.
In Long Pursuit of Bin Laden, the Raid That Just MissedAfter reviewing computer files and documents seized at the compound where Osama bin Laden was killed, American intelligence analysts have concluded that the chief of Al Qaeda played a direct role for years in plotting terror attacks from his hide-out in Abbottabad, Pakistan, United States officials said Thursday.
The C.I.A. had Bin Laden’s compound under surveillance for months before American commandos killed him in an assault on Monday, watching and photographing residents and visitors from a rented house nearby, according to several officials briefed on the operation.
The documents taken at the Abbottabad compound, according to American officials, show that Bin Laden was in touch regularly with the terror network he created. With his whereabouts and activities a mystery in recent years, many intelligence analysts and terrorism experts had concluded that he had been relegated to an inspirational figure with little role in current and future Qaeda operations.
A rushed examination of the trove of materials from the compound in Pakistan prompted Obama administration officials on Thursday to issue a warning that Al Qaeda last year had considered attacks on American railroads.
The documents include a handwritten notebook from February 2010 that discusses tampering with tracks to derail a train on a bridge, possibly on Christmas, New Year’s Day, the day of the State of the Union address or the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, officials said. But they said there was no evidence of a specific plot.
An Obama administration official said that documents about attacking railroads were among the first to be translated from Arabic and analyzed. The materials, along with others reviewed in the intelligence cache, have given intelligence officials a much richer picture of the Qaeda founder’s leadership of the network as he tried to elude a global dragnet.
“He wasn’t just a figurehead,” said one American official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, who had been briefed on the documents. “He continued to plot and plan, to come up with ideas about targets and to communicate those ideas to other senior Qaeda leaders.”
The C.I.A. surveillance team in the rented house near Bin Laden’s hide-out took pains to avoid detection not only by the suspected Qaeda operatives they were watching but by Pakistani intelligence and the local police.
Observing from behind mirrored glass, C.I.A. officers used cameras with telephoto lenses and infrared imaging equipment to study the compound, and they used sensitive eavesdropping equipment to try to pick up voices from inside the house and to intercept cellphone calls. A satellite used radar to search for possible escape tunnels.
Still, the spying operation had its limits: the American surveillance team would see a tall man take regular walks through the compound’s courtyard — they called him “the pacer” — but they were never able to confirm the man was Bin Laden.
The aggressive effort across the intelligence community to translate and analyze the documents seized from the hide-out has as its top priority discovering any clues about terrorist attacks that might be in the works. Intelligence analysts also were scrubbing the files for any information that might lead to identifying the location of Al Qaeda’s surviving leadership.
Since Sunday night, counterterrorism officials have been alert to the possibility of new attacks from Al Qaeda to avenge its leader’s death. Department of Homeland Security officials have reviewed potential terrorist targets and deployed extra security at airports. And in response to the new evidence seized at the Bin Laden compound, the Transportation Security Administration issued a bulletin to rail companies.
But officials emphasized that the information was both dated and vague. “It looks very, very aspirational, and we have no evidence that it developed beyond the initial discussion,” said Matt Chandler, a Homeland Security spokesman.
...
Before Sunday, the last time an American president thought he had Osama bin Laden in his sights was the late summer of 2007.
In 2007, Adm. William J. Fallon called off a bombing raid over Tora Bora, where Bin Laden was thought to be, an American officer said, because it posed too much of a risk to civilians.
Al Qaeda and Taliban commanders, terrorist volunteers and insurgent foot soldiers would be meeting in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan, a stream of intelligence reports showed. And there were hints that Bin Laden himself might travel from his hiding place in Pakistan to rally militants training for large-scale suicide attacks in Europe or the United States.
“We thought we had ‘No. 1’ on this side of the border,” said a senior American military officer involved in planning the operation. “It was the best intelligence we’d had on him in a long time.”
The military set into motion one of the largest strike missions of its kind, with long-range bombers, attack helicopters, artillery and commandos all ready to pummel the rugged mountain valley along Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan, according to military officers and former government officials.
But just as the half dozen B-2 Stealth bombers were halfway on the 3,000-mile flight to their target, commanders ordered them to return to their secret base in the Indian Ocean, because of doubts about the intelligence on Bin Laden and concerns about civilian casualties from the bombs.
A smaller, more precise raid was carried out by commandos and attack helicopters, killing several dozen militants in the episode, which has not been previously disclosed.
But the founder and formative figure of Al Qaeda was not there.
Inside the White House, the disappointment was palpable, ...
...
In addition to assigning about half a dozen B-2 bombers to the mission, dozens of attack jets were in place, ready to strike with precision-guided bombs. On the ground, the military deployed a new, long-range artillery system. Helicopter gunships and Special Operations troops were in place to go in to kill or capture any insurgents who escaped the initial aerial bombardment.
“It was going to be a piling on,” said one senior American officer. The size of the mission, coupled with the ambiguity of the intelligence, alarmed some senior United States commanders, including Adm. William J. Fallon, then the head of Central Command.
“Fallon’s view was you’re swatting a fly with a 16-pound hammer,” said the senior American officer, who was familiar with the commander’s thinking.
Diplomatic and political concerns also surfaced. The B-2s would be flying from a British air base in Diego Garcia, a tiny island in the Indian Ocean, and would need to fly through Pakistani airspace to carry out the mission. While the bombs aboard each B-2 were satellite-guided, there was a risk that one could fall into Pakistan territory.
In late July, as the date of the militants’ meeting approached, civilian and military analysts pored over intelligence reports and communications intercepts for fresh clues. The picture was still murky. Even so, commanders were given the green light a few days later and ordered the B-2s to take off, to be in position if the meeting materialized.
But roughly halfway to their targets, Admiral Fallon called them off. “This was carpet bombing, pure and simple,” said another top military officer who had openly voiced disagreement with the operation. “It was not precision-targeted. There was no way to separate the Al Qaeda leadership that might be on hand, and the fighters, from the local population and the camp followers.”
...
My salutes to you for your post !Rudradev wrote:ramana wrote:
We have survived the connivance of all these parties under much worse circumstances, when we were much weaker. With the wisdom of our ancestors, the courage of our people, and the virtuous sword arm of Dharma on our side we shall continue to survive it until we prevail. Jai Hind!
Mother of all posts Rudradev-ji!Rudradev wrote: Indeed, I believe the presence of OBL in our subcontinental neighbourhood was in fact a net gain for India. Let me explain why.
10) It is important to note that at this stage, OBL never said a word about jihad in Kashmir.
We have survived the connivance of all these parties under much worse circumstances, when we were much weaker. With the wisdom of our ancestors, the courage of our people, and the virtuous sword arm of Dharma on our side we shall continue to survive it until we prevail. Jai Hind!
This was probably a mission which would have been derailed if the seals had panicked after the heli crashed. At the same time, it was not a cent percent success either.SandeepA wrote:Proof of this is the incoherant statements and posturing coming in from khan and TSP. This was probably a mission gone wrong.
RudraJi,Rudradev wrote:Why did they submit to a raid that makes them look so very bad, in terms of H&D, and in terms of casting suspicion on their role in harbouring OBL all these years? Why did they let SEALS cart away incriminating evidence from the location instead of delivering Bin Laden to the Americans on their own terms?
There is only one possible answer: the Pakis may have agreed to let the US snatch OBL on such humiliating terms because... the only alternative available to the Pakis was WORSE. Unkil has something so damaging to the Pakis, that he was able to threaten them with it, and dictate the terms of how the OBL raid was going to go... or else.
What is that "WORSE" thing? I don't know.
I have a suspicion that it might revolve around two trials currently taking place in the US, though. The trial of Tawwahur Hussein Rana in Chicago; and the trial in NY where the families of American 26/11 victims are suing the Pakistan Army and ISI. Things which could have come out in those trials and become public information, may have been even more damaging to Pakistan than the mere fact of OBL hiding in Abbotabad all these years.
Posts like these makes BR the gem it is. Rudradev ji hats off to you.Rudradev wrote: We have survived the connivance of all these parties under much worse circumstances, when we were much weaker. With the wisdom of our ancestors, the courage of our people, and the virtuous sword arm of Dharma on our side we shall continue to survive it until we prevail. Jai Hind!
on another noteUS Senate’s Armed Services Committee Chairman Senator Carl Levin said that he believed that senior Pakistani officials knew Osama Bin Laden s location and they also knew the location of Taliban leader Mullah Omar.
"At high levels, high levels being the intelligence service ... they knew it," Levin said in an interview to a news channel.
Will the Puki visions of Aid Fade ???US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has been asked to certify that Pakistan had no prior knowledge of Osama’s compound. The US aid to Pakistan will depend on the clearance certificate from Hilary Clinton.
Congressman Ted Poe tabled the Pakistan Foreign Aid Accountability Act in the US House of Representatives.
put that in a permanent place in the web and link it? so we can use it again and again...Nesoj wrote:I have a copy - want me to post it here or mail it to you ?
