Pakistan "supported Kabul Embassy attack"

DevilSide · 09-22-2011, 09:24

Quote:

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.

glebo · 09-22-2011, 10:48

"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???

I say, take away all aid and screw'em...but..we know that area is just a big political chess game anyway...

BOfH · 09-22-2011, 11:37

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by glebo

I say, take away all aid and screw'em...but..we know that area is just a big political chess game anyway...

I absolutely concur.........

Big Teddy

MtnGoat · 09-23-2011, 07:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by glebo

"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???

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...

Wolf07 · 09-23-2011, 09:53

Quote:

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.

BOfH · 09-23-2011, 11:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolf07

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?

BOfH · 09-23-2011, 12:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevilSide

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

) 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!!!!.......

Big Teddy

Wolf07 · 09-24-2011, 02:58

If a country simply possession a proactive nuclear doctrine was reason for us to turn over billions of dollars, I'll be damned.

: 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.

Guy · 09-24-2011, 04:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolf07

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.

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

Guy · 09-24-2011, 09:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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

I'd hate to be a PBO when comes time to drawdown (pull-out).

Stay safe.