View Full Version : Pakistan "supported Kabul Embassy attack"
DevilSide
09-22-2011, 09:24
The most senior US military officer has accused Pakistan's spy agency of supporting the Haqqani group in last week's attack on the US Kabul embassy.
"The Haqqani network... acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency," Adm Mike Mullen told a Senate panel.
Some 25 people died in last Tuesday's 20-hour attack on Kabul's US embassy and other official buildings.
Pakistan's interior minister earlier denied links with the Haqqani group.
Rehman Malik told the BBC Pakistan was determined to fight all militants based on its border with Afghanistan.
Pakistani officials have consistently denied links with militant groups.
'Credible intelligence'
The dead included 11 civilians, among them children, along with at least four police and 10 insurgents.
"With ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted a truck bomb attack [on 11 September], as well as the assault on our embassy," said Adm Mullen, who steps down this month as chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"We also have credible intelligence that they were behind the 28 June attack against the Inter-Continental Hotel in Kabul and a host of other smaller but effective operations."
The Haqqani network, which is closely allied to the Taliban and reportedly based in Pakistan, has been blamed for several high-profile attacks against Western, Indian and government targets in Afghanistan.
It is often described by Pakistani officials as a predominantly Afghan group, but correspondents say its roots reach deep inside Pakistani territory, and speculation over its links to Pakistan's security establishment refuses to die down.
In July Adm Mullen accused Pakistan's government of sanctioning the killing of investigative journalist Saleem Shahzad.
Pakistan called that statement "irresponsible".
On Thursday, Mr Malik told the BBC that Pakistan's government had taken "very, very strict actions" whenever it had received information about militant groups.
"We will not allow any terrorist to operate from our area, from our side, irrespective of any country, including Afghanistan," he said. "I assure you that, if their presence is there and which is detrimental, action is going to be taken."
Mr Malik said his government's efforts were hindered by the fact that neither Pakistan or Afghanistan had control over some parts of the border area between them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15024344
Is this news or is someone just saying it publicly? I'm just curious if its going to have any consequences for Pakistan or if there is too much deniability on Pakistan's part.
"We will not allow any terrorist to operate from our area, from our side, irrespective of any country, including Afghanistan," he said. "I assure you that, if their presence is there and which is detrimental, action is going to be taken."
This is the second line up from the bottom....
Gee, I guess they just so happened to "overlook" OBL's presence also???:rolleyes::rolleyes:
I say, take away all aid and screw'em...but..we know that area is just a big political chess game anyway...:confused:
It's a chess game with nuclear pieces, and checkmate may end in mutually assured destruction. There is no surprise we talk the talk but don't walk the walk, our "We can have them but you can't" policy failed with Pakistan, and will probably fail with Iran as well. As quoted by QP JJ_BPK in another recent thread "Its easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put it back in", we tried that same policy with firearms and other things, funny how the same people who we target with the "you can't have it" somehow end up with it anyhow, and those who can/should are usually stonewalled. I believe it was one of the very inventors of the atom bomb who said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results"...
greenberetTFS
09-22-2011, 11:54
I say, take away all aid and screw'em...but..we know that area is just a big political chess game anyway...:confused:
I absolutely concur.........:rolleyes: :eek:
Big Teddy :munchin
"We will not allow any terrorist to operate from our area, from our side, irrespective of any country, including Afghanistan," he said. "I assure you that, if their presence is there and which is detrimental, action is going to be taken."
This is the second line up from the bottom....
Gee, I guess they just so happened to "overlook" OBL's presence also???:rolleyes::rolleyes:
OBL is dead, so they say the don't allow any terrorist to operate from their country... NOW... NOT
mark46th
09-23-2011, 08:40
The fact that Mullen makes the statement is signifigant. Maybe the U.S. has finally gotten fed up paying $4.5 Billion a year in Nuclear blackmail and having Paki supported terrorists killing American G.I.'s...
It's a chess game with nuclear pieces, and checkmate may end in mutually assured destruction. There is no surprise we talk the talk but don't walk the walk, our "We can have them but you can't" policy failed with Pakistan, and will probably fail with Iran as well. As quoted by QP JJ_BPK in another recent thread "Its easier to let the cat out of the bag than to put it back in", we tried that same policy with firearms and other things, funny how the same people who we target with the "you can't have it" somehow end up with it anyhow, and those who can/should are usually stonewalled. I believe it was one of the very inventors of the atom bomb who said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results"...
Pulling out the MAD card? With Pakistan?
...You gotta be kidding me.
Pulling out the MAD card? With Pakistan?
...You gotta be kidding me.
Yes, and no, I'm not kidding. Are they capable? Sure. Will they? Probably not, their nuclear doctrine mimics that of Israel's Samson plan, which focuses on the people and sovereignty more than first strike capability and tactics, specifically with regards to their natural enemy, India. However, the place is a powder-keg waiting to blow, and for every dollar we give them they hate us twofold, so a *reverse* "Arab Spring" could definitely be in the cards, with nuclear weapons in the hands of those who have no qualms about dying and taking many with them.
That said, whether it happens or not doesn't really matter, the doctrine in concept is an effective deterrent and the possibility of it happening so horrible in the eyes of our leaders that we fork over the cash by the truck load and bury our heads in the sand repeating "it's all gonna be OK".
DevilSide
09-23-2011, 12:03
Instead of MAD, what if Pakistan happens to "lose" nuclear material to AQ or another group of militants?
Instead of MAD, what if Pakistan happens to "lose" nuclear material to AQ or another group of militants?
Good point, however, if that were to happen, and the consequences were an attack on US soil involving that material, even our current leaders in all their modern, liberal, pacifist pussy glory(thanks TR :cool: ) would get their collective asses in high gear and the response swift and devastating. It's an escalation that I am sure Pakistan's current leaders would try to avoid at many costs, if not all costs. It's a lot easier for them to pay and support people to wear us down, especially if it influences public opinion; IMHO, we learned that the hard way in Vietnam. My .0002
greenberetTFS
09-23-2011, 16:00
F**k Pakistan!!!!.......:rolleyes::(:eek:
Big Teddy :munchin
If a country simply possession a proactive nuclear doctrine was reason for us to turn over billions of dollars, I'll be damned. :munchin: While the nuclear role plays a factor, it is a small one in our interactions with Pakistan, for the time being.
If you are somehow convinced Pakistan's nuclear armament is a primary factor in our current decision making module for the country, you may want to re-evaluate your criteria.
If you are somehow convinced Pakistan's nuclear armament is a primary factor in our current decision making module for the country, you may want to re-evaluate your criteria.:munchin
Stay safe.
The Reaper
09-24-2011, 09:14
Pakistan and Afghanistan are tied together like Siamese twins, and any action against either has to be considered in its effect on the other.
Piss off Pakistan badly enough, and you lose the only seaport through which passes 90% of all supplies heading to our troops in Afghanistan.
You close that port, you better have almost all of the troops out first, or a Plan B for an air bridge that would put the Berlin Airlift to shame.
Or just pay the Chinese to supply us.
TR
Pakistan and Afghanistan are tied together like Siamese twins, and any action against either has to be considered in its effect on the other.
Piss off Pakistan badly enough, and you lose the only seaport through which passes 90% of all supplies heading to our troops in Afghanistan.
You close that port, you better have almost all of the troops out first, or a Plan B for an air bridge that would put the Berlin Airlift to shame.
Or just pay the Chinese to supply us.
TRI'd hate to be a PBO when comes time to drawdown (pull-out).:eek:
Stay safe.
Roguish Lawyer
09-24-2011, 09:50
If a country simply possession a proactive nuclear doctrine was reason for us to turn over billions of dollars, I'll be damned. :munchin: While the nuclear role plays a factor, it is a small one in our interactions with Pakistan, for the time being.
If you are somehow convinced Pakistan's nuclear armament is a primary factor in our current decision making module for the country, you may want to re-evaluate your criteria.
And you know this how, cadet?
ddoering
09-24-2011, 17:54
Just put a face to those phone numbers and then a bullet in those faces. What's the problem?
as far as their nukes are considered they cant land on US soil,they dont have missiles of that range which can even reach US soil.
but yes their missiles can reach india and very well reach israel too,they are as careful with israel as they are with india.
pakis dont like the US,especially the civilians there they hate america a lot,and some were like "it's great congress is thinking of passing a bill to freeze US aid to us,we dont need it!!"
the worst part is their ISI,you can never ever trust them,they'll say one thing and do another.
and amongst the worst parts of paki propaganda is they say US is the creator of taliban,al-qaeda,haqqani etc.,when the true story is completely different atleast with the taliban-they supported them as india and russia were helping ahmad shah's northern alliance,to help them beat the alliance to take over kabul gen. musharraf had sent some 20000 paki army troops to fight alongside the taliban against the NA.
The Reaper
09-28-2011, 19:42
as far as their nukes are considered they cant land on US soil,they dont have missiles of that range which can even reach US soil.
You don't need a ICBM, all you need is a shipping container, or a closer launch site/platform within the range of your existing missiles.
The ISI could put one on a commercial flight from Pakistan to the US and pop it when they are over New York, DC, or any other city they fly into.
And how many Americans are concentrated at Bagram?
TR
GratefulCitizen
09-28-2011, 20:02
The day is coming when a WMD is going to be used by one of these nutty states.
We need to keep funding ABM activities (including the ones we already "don't" have).
We also need a president whose "presence" is such that a head of a nutty state will think twice before using that WMD on us.
Don't need to outrun the bear.
Just need to outrun everyone else.
Nystagmus
09-28-2011, 23:10
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R40154.pdf -a document concerning Scientific Research on Detection of Nuclear Weapons and Materials (unclassified)
Referring to the above link; I met a gov't physicist few years back that stated something to the effect of "coming soon - to a satellite near you", and basically explained that the US will have "a really great orbital microscope", although similar technology has existed for years...
I am also hopeful that the efforts to secure vulnerable materials have not been futile:
http://energy.gov/articles/busy-year-securing-vulnerable-nuclear-material-and-making-world-safer
I feel that the effects of a Dirty Bomb/WMD being used on our soil could be devastating for the world.
I firmly believe that the suits in the district need to loosen their collars, and let the sof community do what it was designed to do. I support you guys 200% and some!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever notice, that when the USA gets messed with, the world shakes?
I may be from Texas, but my motto is: Don't Mess With America. :D
You don't need a ICBM, all you need is a shipping container, or a closer launch site/platform within the range of your existing missiles.
The ISI could put one on a commercial flight from Pakistan to the US and pop it when they are over New York, DC, or any other city they fly into.
And how many Americans are concentrated at Bagram?
TR
i agree on that sir,yes that is very important to consider that they wont care bombing american bases in a'stan as they dont care if americans or afghans die.though they care a hell lot about the chinese who i feel wreak of evil.
as an indian i feel very happy to see the american warriors especially the QP's accepting the reality of pakistan.
thank you
The day is coming when a WMD is going to be used by one of these nutty states.
We need to keep funding ABM activities (including the ones we already "don't" have).
We also need a president whose "presence" is such that a head of a nutty state will think twice before using that WMD on us.
Don't need to outrun the bear.
Just need to outrun everyone else.
hence the more important that iran doesnt achieve its goals,but still can we trust the chinese who wouldn't mind a bit helping them secretly in return for loyalty as ofcourse the chinese are commie's they wont mind a bit sending them to hell if they play bad boy with them.
what do the QP's think if iran or any of these nutties approached russia would the russians help them??