News - Osama Bin Laden - killed In Pakistan

amdavadi · Post by **amdavadi** » 07 May 2011 04:19

we like it or not, pakis will get $$, because uncle knows giving pakis $$ they can make them do stuff with or without
their approval.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 07 May 2011 04:30

hnair wrote:
ramana wrote:SO what really ticks you off in his post?
the poster

Ramana - IMO, I simply don't believe there there is no link between OBL and Kashmir Jihad. In fact links are fairly documented.

Also, I understand that there is lot of oohs and ahhs but I find the following a little odd.
user Amber G, is doing some rather childish trolling to soothe some past takleef.

WOW!! yes trolling is done, but not by me. What is your point Mr hnair, if not a personal attack on me? You have right to your opinion, as I am that your post is idiotic.

Have a nice day.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 07 May 2011 04:36

ramana wrote:Anujan, Given a chance between going after Kashmir or the jernails who do you think OBL would go after? Not TTP but OBL.

Who knows for sure, unless one can read OBL's mind.

One can speculate, guess etc.. but in the end, it is just that speculation. Doesn't mean that guess is wrong.. it is just that it can not be presented as fact.

Frederic · Post by **Frederic** » 07 May 2011 04:55

Rudradev wrote:
ramana wrote: To add to that,
X-post...
We are not looking at the significance of OBL, HUM, LeT, OBL safehouse ownership by HUM, and location of Abbotabad to LOC. I think from 2005 he was the guiding light of Kashmir terrorists. I bet Daoud Gilani/DCH is also linked to him throught LeT. We should relook at Mumbai train blasts, 26/11 and other spectacular acts of terrorism. He could also be the brain behind Ind Mujahideen.

Ramana garu, I am very very skeptical about any significant role having been played by OBL in the Kashmir Jihad.

OBL was never an enemy of India, except in the broadest ideological sense. Just because he became the poster-boy of "dangerous Islamism" for the west, we do ourselves a disservice by adopting that image wholesale and applying it to an Indian context where it is not at all relevant.

Indeed, I believe the presence of OBL in our subcontinental neighbourhood was in fact a net gain for India. Let me explain why.
.......

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!

Rudradev,

May Bharath Maatha produce more sons and daughters like you.

Thathaasthu.

-Fred

ManuT · Post by **ManuT** » 07 May 2011 05:18

Just read the rumor of Pasha being LBW and making a referral to the 3rd umpire.

Or in other words, Pasha is leading the Friday prayers for himself at DC.

ManuT · Post by **ManuT** » 07 May 2011 06:03

Well, the shop owner turned out to be an Afghan dude....and when he found out that I was Indian he became genuinely warm towards me. He had reserved the choicest gaalis for the Pakis. Saying that those b@$t@rds, not only have they created problems in our part of the world but the whole world in general and its good that the entire humanity are experiencing their misdeeds.....he also said that India is the best country in the region and he hoped it becomes even better

The hatred of Afghans for TSP for what they have done to their country is IMO underestimated. India would be around in Afghanistan long after US leaves. US should take note of that.

sawant · Post by **sawant** » 07 May 2011 06:08

Great post by Rudraji... Made my day !!!
although I sincerely hope that we don't spend the next 20 years fighting these elements... not sure if we have to sacrifice our young officers for that ... we should really learn from our history ( which we dont obviously ) and this time anticipate and win the fight early instead of reacting and tailgating.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 May 2011 06:11

ramana wrote:Shiv, Need your help. I need a five to ten points summary of what is Pakistan. Need that as soon as you can for "education" purposes.

Thanks,

ramana

I think I can do this in more than one way - but this is what occurred to me first in a night disturbed by the coffee that a friend gave me an hour before I went to bed. I ask forum members to feel free to add/modify - but I have tried to stick to 10 points which can act as power point slides

Ten point Pakistan primer

Pakistan was created in 1947 by a group of politically savvy Indians who
leveraged the tumultuous events in India after World War II to secede and carve
out a country for themselves. Even though the majority of Muslims remained
behind in India, the creators of Pakistan claimed that Pakistan was a "homeland
for the Muslims of India"
Pakistan was created as two separate units a thousand miles apart in an act of
voluntary but disastrous cutting of centuries of cultural, family and
trade ties. This made Pakistan politically unstable from the beginning requiring
military rule for unity. Despite that a part of Pakistan split in 1971 to form
Bangladesh.
Pakistan's voluntary amputation from millennia of trade with mainland India made
Pakistan's economy untenable, causing its military rulers to depend on foreign
aid obtained from great powers and other wealthy nations in exchange for
providing support and soldiers for the cold war and other military
campaigns.This got them arms from the USA and eventually nuclear weapons from
China.
Foreign aid was largely appropriated by Pakistan's military making them powerful
and wealthy, while the people of Pakistan languished and lagged behind in
development literacy, healthcare and women's rights.
For the Pakistan military to retain its privileged position in Pakistan it had
to have an enemy and conduct external military campaigns. India became that
designated enemy.
Since the people of Pakistan had been Indians for many centuries and looked
like, spoke like and ate like Indians, some new differentiating factor had to be
created for enmity. Islam, which had coexisted in India for a thousand years was
suddenly declared to be in danger in Hindu India ignoring the fact that India
was home to more followers of Islam than Pakistan,
As the Pakistan military fought and lost a series of wars with "enemy number
one" India, its need to rely on irregular Islamic insurgents to fight India
increased. These armed islamic zealots came in useful to fight the Soviets in
Afghanistan, The Taliban was created out of these groups.
When the cold war ended, the Islamic militias of Pakistan, safe in their new
Afghan hideouts, turned their attention to other irredentist campaigns abroad,
from India to the middle east, Bosnia, Chechnya, the Philippines, western Europe and
finally the USA on 9-11-2001.
9-11 brought the US into Afghanistan and this drove the armed Islamic militias
back to Pakistan where they had come from in the first place.
The Pakistan military needs the Islamic militias (like the Taliban and Lashkar e Toiba)
to fight its wars while it retains its wealthy, pre eminent position in a decrepit, overpopulated
country in a state of social and political failure. The people of Pakistan would benefit
from peace and trade with India, but the nuclear armed Pakistan military
stands to lose its main crutch for staying in power if that happens.
The military,along with its Islamist allies will not allow that to happen.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 07 May 2011 06:26

Anujan wrote:What I meant to imply was huge fortified self-sufficient "American territory" ala Gitmo. I dont mean massive number of *people*. But enough to sustain helos, drones and Spec Ops.

Yes. And massively mined on all sides for miles around with satellite-activate-able 'sleeping beauties'.

I thought as much. Doesn't make sense for unkil to leave Afgn since it *will* result in a power vaccum sought to be filled by assorted inimical interests (paks, talibs, islamists, druglords, warlords, PRC) and neutral interests (India, northern tribes, CARs).

So Afgn will become a sort of Trisanku land. Unkil will give up all attempts at 'recosntruction' (India'll be saddled with that burden) and concentrate on what they think they know best - powerbroking, areal dominance et al.

Maybe, just maybe, it may dawn on the emerging bevy of pentagon and CIA rising stars that an independent baloch with a secure sea route is very much in line with such a strategy only...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 May 2011 06:35

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote: Rudradev, that was a GREAT POST -- an instant classic!

There is a "good posts" thread in the burqa forum. kmkraoind has alreay done the honors there for this post

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 May 2011 06:38

Rangudu wrote:Many moons ago, NY Times reported that Kayani once laughed at Obama, saying that the US President had "no fire in his belly" for the Afghan war or to do the manly things needed.

Obama may be a fattu leader but he does have an ego and I doubt that he forgot this insult. I also doubt that Bush or even McCain (had he won) would have ordered this type of raid.

Kiyani is an insufferable buffoon. The US - while overloading the a display of how it elects its President has never failed to elect a man who is aware of the US's balls and knows that they are usable.

Shaashtanga · Post by **Shaashtanga** » 07 May 2011 06:57

Heard Fareed Zakaria give his 2 cents on Eliot Spitzers - Ïn the Arena - CNN today, everything that Fareed said resonates well with what he had been saying till date but he mentioned India as the "800lb Gorilla" in the region that is the root cause of Paki Khujli and in turn causing them to keep the various vermin active. Not sure if any of the other senior maulaners listened to that but I would request anyone (senior or junior) who listened to that interview to analyze it from the perspective that India has never been referred to being an 800lb gorilla in the western press, it has mostly been used in the west to refer to either USSR or China. I tried to look for that clip online but anyways i can't post the url i guess this being my first post...i am finally out of BRF lurk mode after several years... the recent influx of junior mujahids on BRF after UBL's death gave me the courage to take the plunge.... this forum can be rather intimidating for the greenhorns..... AoA & Jeehard.....

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 07 May 2011 06:59

Amber G: I assume you must be aware of "Simplistic unicasual explanations".

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 07 May 2011 07:03

Let us say you are Unkil, planning the op...and it is without telling TSPA. What are the arguments in favor of ignoring them and take a chance?

If TSPA finds out half-way thru the op, scrambles and confronts the raiding team, their first suspicion would be America, not India because while they MAY OR MAY NOT know if OBL is the target of the raid next to their campus, they would SURELY KNOW there is no Dawood / Hafiz-e-pig there who is of interest to India...because they will know 400% if that is the case.

And we all know Afghan army does not own anything other than a few bullock carts..

Which means they would pick up the phone and talk to Unkil before firing the first weapon....

In which case Unkil can easily tell Kiyanahi that Muridke HQ and a few other installations would be vaporised if a hair of any of the SEALs were to be touched.

Which leads me to believe that they were not told...

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 07 May 2011 07:07

shiv wrote:
Rangudu wrote:Many moons ago, NY Times reported that Kayani once laughed at Obama, saying that the US President had "no fire in his belly" for the Afghan war or to do the manly things needed.

Obama may be a fattu leader but he does have an ego and I doubt that he forgot this insult. I also doubt that Bush or even McCain (had he won) would have ordered this type of raid.
Kiyani is an insufferable buffoon. The US - while overloading the a display of how it elects its President has never failed to elect a man who is aware of the US's balls and knows that they are usable.

What you are telling. Kayani saab is murder- e-momin. May he get more and more extensions only.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 07 May 2011 07:10

P U.S. Tells Pakistan to Name Agents

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 07 May 2011 07:11

From Mansoor Ijaz article..

The other option—a failed terrorist state with nuclear weapons -- is not an option unless Washington is planning an array of special operations to destroy everything in that country.

Let us hope that is the option ....

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 07 May 2011 07:11

SwamyG wrote:Amber G: I assume you must be aware of "Simplistic unicasual explanations".

No, but am ready to learn.. if you would like to elaborate..

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 07 May 2011 07:17

Anujan wrote:Hillary is scheduled to make a stop in Pakistan later this month. Apparently she will be asking the Civvies to grow a pair and not palm off responsibility to the Khakhis. Apparently she is going to debrief and GUBO the jernails. There are talks of demands to "re-structure" the ISI to bring it under civilian oversight.

It is better for aam abdul and ayesha to consider the thought of urging their leaders to make Pakistan the 51st State of U.S. of A. This way, Pakistan can become a good tourist hot-spot and get few freeways built.

Amber G: Aap mujhe sharminda kar rahe ho jee...just google jee.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 07 May 2011 07:20

Shaashtanga wrote:Heard Fareed Zakaria give his 2 cents on Eliot Spitzers - Ïn the Arena - CNN today, everything that Fareed said resonates well with what he had been saying till date but he mentioned India as the "800lb Gorilla" in the region that is the root cause of Paki Khujli and in turn causing them to keep the various vermin active. Not sure if any of the other senior maulaners listened to that but I would request anyone (senior or junior) who listened to that interview to analyze it from the perspective that India has never been referred to being an 800lb gorilla in the western press, it has mostly been used in the west to refer to either USSR or China. I tried to look for that clip online but anyways i can't post the url i guess this being my first post...i am finally out of BRF lurk mode after several years... the recent influx of junior mujahids on BRF after UBL's death gave me the courage to take the plunge.... this forum can be rather intimidating for the greenhorns..... AoA & Jeehard.....

Check this

http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05 ... -pakistan/

http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/06/

Plz point which one

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 07 May 2011 07:26

http://www.hindu.com/2011/05/07/stories ... 900500.htm

Chennai mosque offers prayers for OBL

This is something we do for every Muslim who has died. Osama bin Laden was denied his last rites and his body was thrown into the sea. Our prayer is to show that bin Laden is part of the global Muslim community,” the Chief Imam of Makka Masjid, Shamsuddin Qasimi, told mediapersons after Janaza.

Stalinist propaganda puppets offering meek excuses on behalf of a terrorist supporting mullah...

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 07 May 2011 07:32

Somebody said he was declared an apostate and kicked out of Saudi? Is that true?

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 07 May 2011 07:37

SwamyG - I did google (before even asking you) .. not much help.

meanwhile: Like the idea of .. The pro-independence American Friends of Balochistan ..
'Use polygraph when Gen. Pasha, Haqqani talk; arrest them for aiding al Qaeda'

"Pakistan army is al Qaeda in uniform,"

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 07 May 2011 07:38

Al Quaeda Submarine Built to Look For Osama Bin Laden
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm? ... e=s3i95476
Bin Laden Still Causing Terror From Beyond The Grave
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm? ... e=s3i95467
"Bin Laden killing was illegal" whine Guardian readers

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm? ... e=s1i95462
Bin Laden Death Pictures Released As Conspiracy Theories Mount
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm? ... e=s1i95454
Osama Burial Spotted on Google Earth
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm? ... e=s3i95451
Navy SEAL receives counselling following death of Osama bin Laden
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm? ... e=s3i95452

Shaashtanga · Post by **Shaashtanga** » 07 May 2011 07:41

Shukran Acharyaji for posting the url.... since the video stream doesn't show the total clip time or the elapsed time when i pause it so i downloaded and played it locally (vlc media player says total clip duration is around 4min 17 sec) and Fareed brings up the term at around 2min 53 sec mark but please hear it in full to understand where Fareed was coming from.... My take is that although Fareed is trying to project India in the same level of aggressiveness of current China or erstwhile USSR but we all know that India is not the 800lb aggressive gorilla in the region and shouldn't be projected as such, we are more like an elephant in the room, an elephant who doesn't want to be bothered and doesn't want to bother any one either and the only way it projects its anger is by screaming loudly thru its trunk i.e. chinghaadna instead of just ukhaadoing a tree from its roots from the ground and squashing the imbecile who keeps pricking.... please pardon me if my analysis is incorrect, i have much to learn.....btw its the first url in your post Acharyaji...

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 07 May 2011 07:42

It would be nice to present Rudradev's sequence of evens in some kind of visual (spreadsheet sort of format)

The rows could be

1. India GDP Growth %, absolute GDP in today $, Percapita GDP
2. Significant terror strikes / incidents
3. Significant regional developments
4. Significant intl. developments relevant ones
5. Significant economic news (such as IMF beggings)
6. General Remarks

The columns

Year from 1985- 2011

Have started doing this in Google spreadsheet...any help appreciated..

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 07 May 2011 07:51

Rangudu wrote:Many moons ago, NY Times reported that Kayani once laughed at Obama, saying that the US President had "no fire in his belly" for the Afghan war or to do the manly things needed.

Obama may be a fattu leader but he does have an ego and I doubt that he forgot this insult. I also doubt that Bush or even McCain (had he won) would have ordered this type of raid.

shiv wrote:Kiyani is an insufferable buffoon. The US - while overloading the a display of how it elects its President has never failed to elect a man who is aware of the US's balls and knows that they are usable.

Pakistani Army as an institution are famous for yelling "They have no fire in the belly!!" and then committing soosai. I am sure all the Rakshaks here know this, but it bears repeating.

1. In '65 they came up with this "Indians have no fire in the belly after '62!!" theory. Came up with several other theories to support it (1 Pakistani = 8 Indians) and also claimed that the short dark dhoti wearing LBS (the typical SDRE) will not dare to attack across the international borders. They got a bloody nose.

2. In '71 they came up with "A few well placed knocks" theory -- Indians (according to the Pakis) -- Had no fire in the belly being led by a woman. I presume Indians still didnt get fire in the belly when they accepted the surrender of 93,000 Pakis.

3. In '98 they dusted and rolled out their "Fire in the belly" theory again -- this time propounding that Indians had lost it due to a decade of fighting terrorism in the valley. According to the Pakis, IA was demoralized due to operations against terrorism and would surrender. Siachen figured in this plan somewhere. Indians helped many many Pakis to get posthumous medals.

4. Now comes the US and Afghanistan "Fire in the Belly" theory. Why am I not surprised?

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 07 May 2011 07:54

Anujan saheb,
1,2 and 3 are India specific. Four is different in your theory.

kittoo · Post by **kittoo** » 07 May 2011 07:55

Acharya wrote:
Shaashtanga wrote:Heard Fareed Zakaria give his 2 cents on Eliot Spitzers - Ïn the Arena - CNN today, everything that Fareed said resonates well with what he had been saying till date but he mentioned India as the "800lb Gorilla" in the region that is the root cause of Paki Khujli and in turn causing them to keep the various vermin active. Not sure if any of the other senior maulaners listened to that but I would request anyone (senior or junior) who listened to that interview to analyze it from the perspective that India has never been referred to being an 800lb gorilla in the western press, it has mostly been used in the west to refer to either USSR or China. I tried to look for that clip online but anyways i can't post the url i guess this being my first post...i am finally out of BRF lurk mode after several years... the recent influx of junior mujahids on BRF after UBL's death gave me the courage to take the plunge.... this forum can be rather intimidating for the greenhorns..... AoA & Jeehard.....
Check this

http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05 ... -pakistan/

http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/06/

Plz point which one

This is the one-

http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05 ... -pakistan/

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 07 May 2011 08:03

Re that brilliant post by Rudradev saar,

Let me quickly add a footnote for reference:
PVNR firmly if hurriedly pushed through the parliamentary act specifically establishing that 'all of J&K is an integral part of India' knowing full well the perfect storm ranged against India in the dark days of the early 90s.

A singular piece of foresight and vision which has since served us well in the years following.

vina · Post by **vina** » 07 May 2011 08:05

Uh Oh.. The Amritraj GUBO sessions have already begun.

Probing Links to Bin Laden, US Asks Pakistan to Name Agents

Pakistani officials say the Obama administration has demanded the identities of some of their top intelligence operatives as the United States tries to determine whether any of them had contact with Osama bin Laden or his agents in the years before the raid that led to his death early Monday morning in Pakistan.

Two Pakistani officials with knowledge of the continuing Pakistani investigation say that Bin Laden’s Yemeni wife, one of three wives now in Pakistani custody since the raid on Monday, told investigators that before moving in 2005 to the mansion in Abbottabad where he was eventually killed, Bin Laden had lived with his family for nearly two and a half years in a small village, Chak Shah Mohammad, a little more than a mile southeast of the town of Haripur, on the main Abbottabad highway.

A senior law enforcement official said Friday that the F.B.I. and C.I.A. had rapidly assembled small armies of analysts, technical experts and translators to pore over about 100 thumb drives, DVDs and computer disks, along with 10 computer hard drives, 5 computers and assorted cellphones. Analysts are also sifting through piles of paper documents in the house, many of which are in Arabic and other languages that need to be translated.

In Washington and New York alone, several hundred analysts, technical experts and other specialists are working round the clock to review the trove of information. “It’s all hands on deck,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the continuing investigation.

.. Ouch! More GUBO sessions to follow.

Technical specialists are recovering phone numbers from several cellphones recovered at the compound. The experts need to distinguish foreign telephone contacts from any numbers in the United States, which undergo a separate legal review, the official said.

Uh. Oh. Numbers directly pointing to Paki intelligence and Army are going to tumble out. No lying during GUBO sessions now.

saip · Post by **saip** » 07 May 2011 08:17

I heard they collected 2.7 TERABYTES of data. Or may be they just added up all the capacities of the hard drives, thumb drives, cds and came up with that figure.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 07 May 2011 08:28

saip wrote:I heard they collected 2.7 TERABYTES of data. Or may be they just added up all the capacities of the hard drives, thumb drives, cds and came up with that figure.

Even if 1% was occupied it would mean 27 GB of data. that is lot of data!

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 07 May 2011 08:34

Pakistan spy chief faces mounting pressure to resign

The Pakistani government has faced public recrimination in the wake of the embarrassing news that the world's most wanted terrorist had been living for years only a mile from a prestigious Pakistani military officers academy--in an affluent suburb about a two-hour drive of the capital Islamabad. Charges are rife that Pakistani security services were either incompetent or complicit with harboring bin Laden--and as a result, the government is facing increasing pressure to make some senior heads roll in order to save face both before its own public and internationally.

The first such Pakistani official who appears to be in line for cashiering is Pakistan's spy chief, Lt. Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha, whose formal title is director-general of the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, or ISI.

"It would make a lot of sense" for Pasha to resign, retired Pakistani Lt. Gen. Talat Masood told Newsweek/The Daily Beast's Ron Moreau in an exclusive report handicapping the spy chief's odds for imminent retirement. "It's in his (Pasha's) personal and the national interest to take the heat off."

It's "entirely possible" Pasha will resign, Columbia University Pakistan security expert Prof. Hassan Abbas, a former Pakistani police officer, told The Envoy Friday, adding that his own well-informed contact told him "someone's head will roll--so it can be Pasha. I have a feeling there will be [a] few."

A White House official said he had no guidance on the reports that Pasha might resign. Two other U.S. officials also said they genuinely had no idea if reports Pasha might resign were correct.

Tensions between the American and Pakistani spy services have grown acute in recent months. Evidence of mounting strains in the two countries' intelligence activities was apparent even before the U.S. raid on bin Laden. There are still many unresolved questions, for instance, surrounding the Pakistani arrest and jailing of CIA contractor Ray Davis, accused of killing two people in self-defense in January. The United States had insisted throughout the case that Davis had diplomatic immunity. (Davis was eventually released in March after the families of the two men he killed, who he said were trying to rob him, were compensated more than $2 million.)

Tensions were also in play when Gen. Pasha and CIA Director Leon Panetta went into a four-hour, closed-door meeting at Langley last month. U.S. officials acknowledged at the time of the meeting that Pakistan's spy chief was trying to obtain more "visibility" into covert CIA operations in Pakistan--which we now know included top-secret preparations for the raid on bin Laden's compound. Pakistan intelligence officials were never brought into the loop for the U.S. operation, clearly because American officials did not want their Pakistani counterparts to leak any advance word--a view that both national security adviser John Brennan and CIA Director Leon Panetta have confirmed in statements on the raid. (The CIA maintained a safe house in Abbottabad to monitor the suspected bin Laden refuge, the Washington Post reported today.)

A former senior U.S. intelligence official who served in Pakistan said that as fallout from the bin Laden raid continues to spread, Pakistani authorities and security chiefs "don't know what to do," he told The Envoy Thursday. "They were caught flat-footed. They can't say they didn't know [bin Laden] was there. ... Maybe [Pakistani President Asif Ali] Zardari didn't know. But I am sure the chief of the army staff knew [because] Pasha told him," he speculated.

"The raid shows the Pakistanis what we think of them," he said.

The attitude of the Pakistani military and intelligence officials is "we knew he was there, we know the Agency was looking for him, but we were not going to dirty our hands with either side," the former CIA official continued. "'We aren't going to tell [the CIA] about that house.' They are not going to tell [bin Laden] we asked questions about him. They never believed we have the balls to come and do it," he said, referring to the U.S. raid to take out bin Laden, which he said was a risky operation that "took incredible courage" on Obama's part to order, given what could have gone wrong.

Pakistanis are outraged at their military and intelligence leaders--not only because of the bin Laden revelation, but also because the U.S. raid showed how porous the nation's sovereignty and national security can be. The American commando team was able to breach the nation's sovereignty to conduct the 40-minute raid against bin Laden, apparently without being detected or engaged by Pakistani forces. Reports have said the U.S. Navy SEAL team used special stealth helicopters to evade detection by the Pakistanis during the operation.

Pakistan has stepped up its fight against the Pakistani Taliban since 2009--but its inaction against various other militant groups including those waging attacks in Afghanistan and India has become a growing source of tension between Washington and Islamabad, says Stephen Tankel, a Pakistan expert and visiting scholar with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Among the militant groups that Pakistan has either passively tolerated or actively supported, in the view of U.S. policy hands are: the Haqqani network that supports the Afghan Taliban; and Lashkar e-Taiba (LeT), the Pakistani militant group originally formed as a proxy to fight Indian forces for control of Kashmir, and which was implicated in the 2008 Mumbai, India, terrorist attacks that killed six Americans.

And as the United States demonstrates increasing impatience with such Pakistani inaction, "there's been a shift to more unilateral action on the part of the United States," Tankel told The Envoy.

Meanwhile, U.S. and Pakistani interests in neighboring Afghanistan are increasingly out of alignment; Pakistan is accused of actively supporting Pashtun militants trying to destabilize the country. As a result, the United States has also stopped consulting with Pakistani officials on the drone strikes it is conducting in Pakistan's northwest tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, according to some Pakistan security experts speaking not for attribution.

"Pakistan is seeking to shape a post-U.S. Afghanistan to its favor--the same reason it supported the Taliban" in the first place in the 1990s, when the Pakistani-backed, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan harbored bin Laden before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Tankel said.

Purush · Post by **Purush** » 07 May 2011 08:36

Anujan wrote:I also disagree with the fact that the Paki army helped the US to catch OBL. You have to understand that the Jernails and Kernails are beholden to *Army as an institution* which would give anything to protect their H&D. If it comes out that the top Jernails and Kernails sold out their H&D, the middle and bottom will revolt and split the army.

The greatest blow to their H&D was '71 and they still about it, talk about it, vow revenge for it *to this day*. There is absolutely no way that the Pakis would let Amreekis enter from the rear, drop off a few SEALs 500 meters from PMA, shoot up a few, and hold back against them. There are several things that could have gone wrong with this op. SEALs could have shot up a few Paki civilians. SEALs could have shot up a few Paki police/army types who responded. They could have lost both helos, in which case they are either stuck & fortified themselves in the compound (think Raymond Davis times 80 men + 1 dog) or Pakis should let the US violate their sovirginity again by sending 2 more helos. All of which is a H&D loss big enough for the Army to split. This is a kick in the nuts and a slap on their H&D of immeasurable proportions. In addition, it has *huge* potential to undercut the mango abdul's confidence and admiration of the army and give opportunities for the civvies to grow a pair.

No Sir, Pakis didnt help.

Now Pakis could have helped in an *individual capacity*. Did some ISI/Army higher up sell out for a few greenbacks, a gori motorma and a green card? I will bet my left testimonial that they did. The increased "contacts" between mid-level intelligence/army types starting 10 years back means that a vast fraction of them are higher ups now.

Now did higher up Pakis actually instruct the army to hold back? No sir, they didnt. RADAR operators, Forward observers, ISI goons right up to captains and Chowkidar of PMA had to be informed to hold back. And this *would eventually leak* especially from the mid to low level beard types, who would pick up their AKs, wear a Soosai vest and yell jeeeehaaaarrddd!! The most likely explanation is that Massa has penetrated the Army/ISI, from which they are getting *information* and not relying on them for ops. They have had 10 years to do this.

The gratifying outcome for me is, the Army and ISI is now going to go on a witch hunt and turn on themselves to identify these moles.

Excellent post.!
+1 to everything you've written.

The colored part must be repeatedly driven home, the message must be spread loudly and clearly.
DO NOT let the pacquis off the hook.

TSPA/ISI are congenital liars; taking their statements at face value and building up CT or 'analysis' around these 'data points' is akin to shooting ourselves in the foot. It also gives legitimacy to pacqui claims about 'co-operation' in tracking down OBL blah blah etc etc.

Notions of 'but but inside pacquistan ISI is all-powerful onlee, ISI is omniscient onlee...no way Unkil could have carried out the operation without ISI's co-operation/blessing' should be discarded completely. Don't dhoti-shiver unnecessarily. Don't pour water on the pacquis' flaming musharrafs..let them burn for a while.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 May 2011 08:37

Suppiah wrote:Let us say you are Unkil, planning the op...and it is without telling TSPA. What are the arguments in favor of ignoring them and take a chance?

If TSPA finds out half-way thru the op, scrambles and confronts the raiding team, their first suspicion would be America, not India because while they MAY OR MAY NOT know if OBL is the target of the raid next to their campus, they would SURELY KNOW there is no Dawood / Hafiz-e-pig there who is of interest to India...because they will know 400% if that is the case.

And we all know Afghan army does not own anything other than a few bullock carts..

Which means they would pick up the phone and talk to Unkil before firing the first weapon....

In which case Unkil can easily tell Kiyanahi that Muridke HQ and a few other installations would be vaporised if a hair of any of the SEALs were to be touched.

Which leads me to believe that they were not told...

One can think of several scenarios and see if the observed events fit the scenarios

Possibility 1. There is complete understanding between the US and Pakistan that bin Laden would be taken by US forces. There are several holes in this argument. If such an understanding was there, then the operation was badly planned and botched by both Pakistan and the US. Both faced fallout - with great risk and possible loss of stealth tech to the US and possibly irreparable diplomatic and political damage to the Pakistan army.

Possibility 2. The US found Osama and informed Pakistan that it was going to mount an operation to take out Osama and that they would be vaporised if the did anything. This interpretation has even more holes than the earlier one. The US would have been able to do nothing if Osama had been moved out instantly - perhaps to the Military Academy next door or even under Kiyanis bed. The US would have been blamed for attacking innocents in a Pakistan urban area. A US that can casually threaten to vaporise something is a US that need not have any concern for Pakistan's nukes that can equally easily be vaporised. This IMO also kills the "Osama or nukes" theory which again has far too many holes. No such threat can come from the US and even if such a threat comes it benefits Pakistan to let the US carry out its threat after failing to get Osama rather than continuing to face such a threat at some future date after meekly giving up Osama. If Pakistan bends to one US nuclear threat, it will have to bend to all future threats, just like if India bends to Paki threats (give us Cashmere), it will have to keep on bending later

Possibility 3. The US found someone whom they thought was Osama and judged that sharing with Pakistan would have all the negative consequences of "Possibility 2" above. They chose a covert operation understanding that the risks would be manageable, while the risk to US credibility with option 2 would be high and come on top of a possibility of sabotage by Pakistanis.

I am certain it was a covert operation exactly as stated. I believe that the US saw this as a last chance before the ISI started clamping down on US activities. OBL was too good a target to be left till later.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 May 2011 08:51

If the Pakis had wanted to give up Osama and pretend that they did not know who was in that compound -- they could have cleared out the surrounding buildings attacked the building themselves or got the US to do it and then claimed that the bodies were unrecognizable.

Such options would have been unavailable to the Pakistan army because they would have immediately been seen by the LeT/HuM and Taliban as attacking Osama rather than defending him. The sellout would have been known instantly. Even now it looks like a sellout anyway.

if there is an iota of intelligence displayed by the US in this episode it is in realising that the Pakis cannot be trusted on this.

It is OK to think that the US trusts Pakistan. But claiming that this trust is justuified because Pakistan delivered Osama as demanded suggests that the US-Pakistan relationship is one of perfect harmony where the Pakistan army will do these things without double dealing. Trying to make a case that this was a "special case" where the Pakistani army was forced to do as the US said because the nukes were threatened in exchange for Osama is simply making up a convenient argument to suit a shaky premise.

The "covert ops as announced" scenario is definitely the most plausible one and does not require a long list of presumptions to be created

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 07 May 2011 08:54

Sir Hilary Synnott: Yes, be angry with Pakistan's treachery, but don’t go nuts

The notion that Pakistan has, in Western eyes, been a treacherous ally since 2001 is well-founded and not new. The world has recently been reminded of the conflicting interests and practices by recollections of Prime Minister David Cameron's declaration that Pakistan has been 'looking both ways' and by former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's references to the duplicity he encountered when he was a frequent visitor to Islamabad in 2001-02, when I was High Commissioner there and had similar experiences.

But the revelation of the presence in Abbottabad, one of the country's most militarised cities, of the world's most wanted criminal 'on the run' for ten years, suggests a new and different order of magnitude of perfidy.

And international reaction will have been sharpened by the Pakistan establishment's astonishingly inept attempts at self justification: Prime Minister Gilani's accusation that any failing on the part of Pakistan reflected the failings of other countries' intelligence services; and Foreign Secretary Bashir's exhortations that we should put the episode behind us and look forward. This last is reminiscent of General Musharraf's attempts to deal with the reaction to his land grab in Kargil in Kashmir in 1999.

So there will be a natural temptation to contemplate a wholesale shift in the United States' and others' relationship with Pakistan, perhaps the cessation of all aid, including the Kerry-Lugar-Berman packages for the social and educational sector.

This would be a mistake . While the status quo may no longer be acceptable and the U.S.-Pakistan relationship needs to and should be recalibrated, it will do no good to cut off hope for economic improvement and employment opportunities in a nuclear armed country with a population six times that of Afghanistan and an exploding demographic profile.

Rather, the United States should continue, resolutely, steadily and with no false expectations, to try to disburse assistance for social development. It should target and account for its military-related assistance much more carefully than hitherto. And it should close off Pakistan's access to big-ticket arms contracts, paid for from Pakistan's own sparse funds, which can only be used against India while, if possible, liberalising access to U.S. markets for Pakistani textiles.

Sir Hilary Synnott was British High Commissioner to Pakistan 2000-2003. He is author of Transforming Pakistan: Ways Out of Instability and a memoir of his service in Iraq, Bad Days in Basra.

Pakistan Loses the Upper Hand

The day after U.S. special operations forces dramatically raided Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan seemed to invite an investigation into whether elements of the Pakistani government were complicit in sheltering bin Laden. During a briefing, Brennan asserted, "I think it's inconceivable that bin Laden did not have a support system in the country that allowed him to remain there for an extended period of time. I am not going to speculate about what type of support he might have had on an official basis inside of Pakistan ... I think people are raising a number of questions, and understandably so."

But a day later, the administration seemed more eager to limit the damage the raid might cause to its relationship with Islamabad. The Pentagon and the Pakistani military issued a joint statement reaffirming their cooperation against terrorism. And according to the Wall Street Journal, senior administration officials urged restraint in blaming Pakistan's leaders for the embarrassing presence of bin Laden and his family within a few hundred meters of Pakistan's army academy and in the same neighborhood as many retired army officers.

From this perspective, the bin Laden raid is now a matter for historians to ponder: serious policymakers on both sides should focus on the future and on those practical interests shared by the United States and Pakistan. From this point of view, the raid didn't change the interests each side seeks or the leverage each side can deploy against the other and the United States still needs Pakistan's cooperation against terror networks that threaten the West. The U.S. also needs Pakistani support to move supply convoys through Pakistan to its forward operating bases in Afghanistan. For its part, Islamabad still seeks to maintain its connections to the West, to retain its diplomatic options, and to receive financial assistance from Washington and elsewhere. The death of bin Laden hasn't changed any of these facts.

This view may be correct for now but it is not likely to hold. First, with the bin Laden raid such a spectacular success, Obama will likely come under increasing pressure to repeat its success. Previous U.S. direct action incursions into Pakistan were met with harsh reactions from Islamabad, including the temporary shutdown of the supply pipeline through the Khyber Pass. But with the raid's success and the now nearly universal assumption that the Pakistani government is not a trustworthy partner, there will be growing political pressure inside the United States for Obama to treat Pakistan as an "open range" for military operations against terrorist targets.

Second, political pressure will mount on Obama to wind down the war in Afghanistan, something that the president seems willing to accommodate. Bin Laden's death will deliver finality to many in the U.S. electorate. The sense of an end to the 9/11 story will clash with calls to continue the costly counterinsurgency campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan's villages. Should Obama accede to an accelerated departure from Afghanistan, it would be another demonstration that the "post-Gates" era has arrived, a point my FP colleague Peter Feaver mentioned this week.

The more forces the United States withdraws from Afghanistan, the more leverage it gains over Pakistan; fewer forces in Afghanistan mean less reliance on the supply line through Pakistan. The bin Laden raid set a precedent for U.S. ground operations inside Pakistan, which Obama will now come under increasing pressure to repeat. It is true that the bin Laden raid didn't change for now the fundamental interests and leverage in the U.S.-Pakistani relationship. But the raid did set in motion political forces inside the United States that won't please Pakistan.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 07 May 2011 08:55

Special prayers in Kolkata, Chennai too

Funeral prayers for Osama were held Friday in mosques in Kolkata and Chennai. The Shahi Imam of Tipu Sultan mosque in Kolkata, Maulana Nurur Rehman Barkati, held the special Friday prayer for the “peace of Osama’s soul”. There were reportedly placards at the prayer meet reading “Disrespect to Holy Quran is intolerable”. In Chennai, Maulana Shamsudeen Qasimi, Imam of Makkah Masjid in Anna Salai said, “America killed him inhumanly and left his body in the sea without performing Janazah. So we conducted Janazah for him.”

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 07 May 2011 08:59

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/ ... 0377.shtml
Pakistan: Bin Laden had split with al-Zawahri

Intelligence agency claims "cash-strapped" al Qaeda leader had been "marginalized" by deputy
The Wall Street Journal reports the official said bin Laden had been "marginalized" by al-Zawahiri. "They had parted ways some six years ago," he said.
The officer didn't provide details or elaborate how his agency made the conclusions about bin Laden's financial situation or the split with his deputy, al-Zawahri. The al Qaeda chief had apparently lived without any guards at the Abbottabad compound or loyalists nearby to take up arms in his defense.U.S. officials told the Journal they doubted the split was true. "Parted ways? I don't think so," one U.S. counterterrorism official told the paper. "I have not seen anything like that" from intelligence reports.The image of Pakistan's intelligence agency has been battered at home and abroad in the wake of the raid that killed bin Laden. Portraying him as isolated and weak may be aimed at trying to create an impression that a failure to spot him was not so important.
Late Thursday, two Pakistani officials cited bin Laden's wives and children as saying he and his associates had not offered any "significant resistance" when the American commandos entered the compound, in part because the assailants had thrown "stun bombs" that disorientated them.