These are Shrub's allies in the war on terror???

[97silverlsc]

Bin Laden Gets a Pass from Pakistan

September 05, 2006 5:41 PM

Brian Ross and Gretchen Peters Report:

Osama bin Laden, America's most wanted man, will not face capture in Pakistan if he agrees to lead a "peaceful life," Pakistani officials tell ABC News.

The surprising announcement comes as Pakistani army officials announced they were pulling their troops out of the North Waziristan region as part of a "peace deal" with the Taliban.

If he is in Pakistan, bin Laden "would not be taken into custody," Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan told ABC News in a telephone interview, "as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen."

Bin Laden is believed to be hiding somewhere in the tribal areas of Pakistan, near the Afghanistan border, but U.S. officials say his precise location is unknown.

In addition to the pullout of Pakistani troops, the "peace agreement" between Pakistan and the Taliban also provides for the Pakistani army to return captured Taliban weapons and prisoners.

"What this means is that the Taliban and al Qaeda leadership have effectively carved out a sanctuary inside Pakistan," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, the former White House counter-terrorism director.

The agreement was signed on the same day President Bush said the United States was working with its allies "to deny terrorists the enclaves they seek to establish in ungoverned areas across the world."

The Pakistani Army had gone into Waziristan, under heavy pressure from the United States, but faced a series of humiliating defeats at the hands of the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters.

"They're throwing the towel," said Alexis Debat, who is a Senior Fellow at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant. "They're giving al Qaeda and the Taliban a blank check and saying essentially make yourselves at home in the tribal areas," Debat said.

 

[Calabrio]

What's does that have to do with Bush?

I guess a Democrat administration would not only be able to pick their allies, but also dictate their domestic policy and somehow prevent and armed internal revolution within Pakistan as well?

 

[TheDude]

What's does that have to do with Bush?

I guess a Democrat administration would not only be able to pick their allies, but also dictate their domestic policy and somehow prevent and armed internal revolution within Pakistan as well?

Come on now, a year+ ago when people complained that Bush had failed in his vow to capture/kill Osama the Republicans in here touted how Pakistan was a very sensitive issue and they (the Bush Admin) were handling it "masterfully". Doesn't seem too masterful now that good ole 7 foot Arab terrorist has a sanctuary.

It's only a matter of time until this rat will be able to build up the resources and attack again (I think we can all agree that Osama does not intend on letting bygones be bygones and living a life of peace).

 

[fossten]

Come on now, a year+ ago when people complained that Bush had failed in his vow to capture/kill Osama the Republicans in here touted how Pakistan was a very sensitive issue and they (the Bush Admin) were handling it "masterfully". Doesn't seem too masterful now that good ole 7 foot Arab terrorist has a sanctuary.

It's only a matter of time until this rat will be able to build up the resources and attack again (I think we can all agree that Osama does not intend on letting bygones be bygones and living a life of peace).

Well, if he blows up a major American city, at least the Democrats can tout that they killed the Patriot Act and kept our privacy rights protected.

 

[Calabrio]

Come on now, a year+ ago when people complained that Bush had failed in his vow to capture/kill Osama the Republicans in here touted how Pakistan was a very sensitive issue and they (the Bush Admin) were handling it "masterfully". Doesn't seem too masterful now that good ole 7 foot Arab terrorist has a sanctuary.

Actually, this emphasizes exactly what was said.

Pakistan is a mess. It is a violent and unstable country, with nuclear weapons, with a muslim population. It's so unstable, a great deal of it lives completely in anarchy.

Yet the administration has managed to maintain good ties with the country, and Pakistan HAS proven to be a valuable partner on the war on terror. They routinely provide intelligence information.

They are walking a tight rope. Let's establish, they aren't our friends, but we have a shared interest. The regime in power there holds on by their finger tips. They need to keep Islamic radicals as supressed as possible. We need to keep that regime in power because they are stable and we don't want their nuclear military to fall into the hands of any terrorist front.

But at the same time, if we are too visible in that country, we will trigger riots and that regime will be toppled.

When you talk about this "war on terror," or better "The War on Islamo-fascists," you have to recognize how delicate some of the situations and relationships are.

So if Bin Laden is willing to promise to sit quietly in a cave, the Pakistanis can say they'll publically leave that freak, who's a folk hero especially in the rural parts.

It's only a matter of time until this rat will be able to build up the resources and attack again (I think we can all agree that Osama does not intend on letting bygones be bygones and living a life of peace).

Osama is not relevant to any future campaigns of terror. He is and has always been a phoney. He was a figure head and a fund raiser. That was about it. He's not a warrior. He's not a fighter. He's not even that rich anymore. Virtually all of his money and assetts were frozen years ago.

And now, assuming he is living in rural Pakistan hiding, he's irrelevant, other than as a symbol of Western defiance, which is significant, but not critical. The death or capture of Bin Laden is purely symbolic. He is not, nor was he ever, the proverbial "head of the snake."


So, this story has nothing to do with Bush, it has to do with how unstable Pakistan is, and how unstable, violent, and prone to destablizing governments Islam is. The fact that we retain this threatened country as an ally, providing us support, is actually a big diplomatic victory.

 

[TheDude]

What will you say when/if a bomb goes off, kills hundreds or thousands and this bean stalk is on TV saying "Derka derka, Islamic Jihad, derka, derka!" Do you honestly think this guy is truly impotent and willing to live in peace from now on?

 

[Calabrio]

What will you say when/if a bomb goes off, kills hundreds or thousands and this bean stalk is on TV saying "Derka derka, Islamic Jihad, derka, derka!" Do you honestly think this guy is truly impotent and willing to live in peace from now on?

Before going any further, what do you suppose we do about that? Publically scold the Pakistani government? Maybe we can tighten up the bond and provide the Arab media picture of Mussarif and Bush hugging?

How about a full fledged invasion into Pakistan? What do you think the fall out of that will be?

Everyone has the luxury of being critical and saying what outcome we should achieve without actually having to address how to do it and what the consequences will be.

And then you also to take into account the public statements versus the covert activity.

But you ask what I'll say if that cowardly bean pole is on video after a successful attack? At this point, I'd consider him to be more of a mascot than anything else. He, apparently, is unable to finance these attacks. He's unable to actively fundraise. And he's unable to communicate freely with other leaders within the loosely connected group we refer to as Al-Queda. If he does a dance after an attack, I would equate that to seeing the Philadelphia Chicken dancing on the field after someone else hits a homerun.

There is value in killing him, a propoganda value. However, the public in general, in their effort to find a simple way to frame this struggle, are making a mistake by making him the face of terror. It's not about HIM, it's about all the Islamic cultists who agree with him.

He was the face of Al-Queda. He was a phoney war hero who bought his way to folk-hero status. Killing him will not bring about an end to the war.

But, in honesty, it doesn't do us any good to have him alive, breathing in bold resistance to the United States. But killing him has to be kept in perspective and prioritized accordingly.

Do I think he's willing to live in peace- absolutely not. But I think we can survey him electronically effectively enough that he can remain impotent. At this point, it's believed any communication with the outside world is done primarily with messages and donkeys.

But if starts acting up, doesn't that give the Pakistanis the right to kill him? That would be in violation of the conditions in the truce. He has to stay in the rural, 15th century villages, and he can't engage in terror. So that means he can't casually move to a big city and get a broadband internet connection. I presume this to also mean no video tapes.

 

[TheDude]

We publicly scold other countries that harbor terrorist, why can't we scold Pakistan? We give other countries ultimatums, when they are not meet, we act. A full war with Pakistan would be counter productive, I agree, but allowing this guy to live in peace because he says he will is laughable. The guy was born filthy rich and had the option to live a life of luxury without any sort of burden, yet he chooses to live in caves and fight for what he feels is right. Point being, this guy will not stop until he is either jailed or dead. I also agree that killing him will not be a 'check-mate', but killing Zarqawi wasn't either, but each pawn taken is a step closer and even if he is only a symbol of defiance now, it's a symbol of defiance that "emboldens" the enemy.

 

[fossten]

We publicly scold other countries that harbor terrorist, why can't we scold Pakistan? We give other countries ultimatums, when they are not meet, we act. A full war with Pakistan would be counter productive, I agree, but allowing this guy to live in peace because he says he will is laughable. The guy was born filthy rich and had the option to live a life of luxury without any sort of burden, yet he chooses to live in caves and fight for what he feels is right. Point being, this guy will not stop until he is either jailed or dead. I also agree that killing him will not be a 'check-mate', but killing Zarqawi wasn't either, but each pawn taken is a step closer and even if he is only a symbol of defiance now, it's a symbol of defiance that "emboldens" the enemy.

That's your best solution? Wag your finger and scold them? They're harboring a terrorist fugitive that has attacked our country and we know it and they know we know it. Do you really think that will work?

 

[TheDude]

That's your best solution? Wag your finger and scold them? They're harboring a terrorist fugitive that has attacked our country and we know it and they know we know it. Do you really think that will work?

Obviously no, but then again, a scolding is better than doing absolutely nothing. Like I said, we give other countries ultimatums and then we react. If Pakistan is unwilling to capture this guy, we send in our forces (not a full scale country invasion) and capture/kill him ourselves. One thing I can tell you though, letting this guy live in peace is not a good option and that is my point.

 

[Calabrio]

We publicly scold other countries that harbor terrorist, why can't we scold Pakistan? We give other countries ultimatums, when they are not meet, we act.

And what outcome do you hope to achieve?

A full war with Pakistan would be counter productive, I agree, but allowing this guy to live in peace because he says he will is laughable.

The guy was born filthy rich and had the option to live a life of luxury without any sort of burden, yet he chooses to live in caves and fight for what he feels is right.

Actually, he's never really volunteered to live in a cave. He has no choice. He's not living, he's hiding. And the wealth he is living on is not his, it's likely the result of gifts or direct funding from Al-Queda operatives.

His assetts were seized long ago and there are no ATMs in the mountains of Pakistan.

Point being, this guy will not stop until he is either jailed or dead. I also agree that killing him will not be a 'check-mate', but killing Zarqawi wasn't either, but each pawn taken is a step closer and even if he is only a symbol of defiance now, it's a symbol of defiance that "emboldens" the enemy.

He is a symbol. Absolutely right. And a powerful symbol. But, at this point, that appears to be all he is. And we need to weigh the power of that symbol versus the likely fall of the Pakistani state into the hands of Islamic terrorists. It won't take much for that to happen.


And let's take this a step further. What does nuclear India do when it's hostile neighbor, nuclear Pakistan, is now in the hands of death cult Islamic terrorists? Mutually Assured Destruction is not a policy that can be used when applying it to the death cult of Islam.


The point is, this stuff is really complicated and extremely delicate. By the way, the story Phil posted is crap. It's just partisan crap designed to confuse people and undermine our security in an effort to get liberals and their flawed world view elected. Criticism with no alternative solutions or critical thinking. And relying upon it to make an opinion is a bad idea.

With a little research, you'll find the real story is actually more unsettling. BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PRESIDENT BUSH. This shouldn't be framed in a "Bush sucks" frame. Phil's doing so only further demonstrates how he continually posts the writings of ignorant, American hating, leftist tools.

The reality is, Pakistan is almost formally abandoning this region. Pakistan is desperate to retain stability.

http://billroggio.com/archives/2006/09/talibanistan_the_est.php

Talibanistan: The Establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan

Pakistan's "truce with the Taliban is an abject surrender, and al-Qaeda has an untouchable base of operations in Western Pakistan which will only expand if not checked

NWFP-Waziristan.gifThe news of the Pakistani government signing a truce agreement with the Taliban in North Waziristan is far worse than being reported. We raised the alarm early morning on September 4, and newly uncovered information on the terms of the agreement indicate Pakistan has been roundly defeated by the Taliban in North Waziristan. The “truce” is in fact a surrender. According to an anonymous intelligence source, the terms of the truce includes:

- The Pakistani Army is abandoning its garrisons in North and South Waziristan.
- The Pakistani Military will not operate in North Waziristan, nor will it monitor actions the region.
- Pakistan will turn over weapons and other equipment seized during Pakistani Army operations.
- The Taliban and al-Qaeda have set up a Mujahideen Shura (or council) to administer the agency.
- The truce refers to the region as “The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan.”
- An unknown quantity of money was transferred from Pakistani government coffers to the Taliban. The Pakistani government has essentially paid a tribute or ransom to end the fighting.
- “Foreigners” (a euphemism for al-Qaeda and other foreign jihadis) are allowed to remain in the region.
- Over 130 mid-level al-Qaeda commanders and foot soldiers were released from Pakistani custody.
- The Taliban is required to refrain from violence in Pakistan only; the agreement does not stipulate refraining from violence in Afghanistan.

Al Rayah - the flag of al-Qaeda. Click image to view.

The truce meeting was essentially an event designed to humiliate the Pakistani government and military. Government negotiators were searched for weapons by Taliban fighters prior to entering the meeting. Heavily armed Taliban were posted as guards around the ceremony. The al Rayah – al-Qaeda's black flag – was hung over the scoreboard at the soccer stadium where the ceremony was held. After the Pakistani delegation left, al-Qaeda's black flag was run up the flagpole of military checkpoints and the Taliban began looting the leftover small arms. The Taliban also held a 'parade' in the streets of Miranshah. They openly view the 'truce' as a victory, and the facts support this view.
Yuldashev.jpg

Tahir Yuldashev

While this is not reported in the media, the “Taliban commanders” in attendance include none other than Jalaluddin Haqqani, military commander of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Tahir Yuldashev, the commander of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. The New York Times does place Haqqani and Yuldashev in the Waziristan region. Both men are deeply in bed with al-Qaeda, and it is useless at this point in time to make distinctions between al-Qaeda, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan , the Taliban and Pakistan jihadi groups like Lashkar-Toiba. Syed Saleem Shahzad indicates other known Taliban commanders were present at the meeting; "At the gathering, mujahideen leader Maulana Sadiq Noor and a representative of Gul Badar (chief of the Pakistani Taliban in North Waziristan), as well as other members of the mujahideen shura (council), were seated on a stage while the leaders of the JUI-F [the political party of Pakistani opposition leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman and only party in North and South Waziristan, which was not always the case] delivered the speeches." Note that while unstated, Haqqani and Yuldashev also sit on the Mujahideen Shura.

To add insult to the defeat of the Waziristan truce, Pakistan has openly admitted that it would let Osama bin Laden remain a free man if committed to living a peaceful existance in the region. “If he is in Pakistan, bin Laden 'would not be taken into custody,' Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan told ABC News in a telephone interview, 'as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen,” reports ABC News' The Blotter. An independent intelligence source confirms Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan Khan's position is an accurate reflection of Pakistani policy. [Note: Pakistan has since retracted its statements on bin Laden and immunity, but the Blotter transcript of teh interview refutes this.]

The Pakistani government has ceded a region the size of New Jersey, with a population of about 800,000 to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is not the end of the Taliban's expansion, however. An intelligence source indicates similar negotiations between the Taliban and the Pakistani government are being held in the agencies of Khyber, Tank, Dera Ishmal Khan and Bajaur. The jihadi dreams of al-Qaeda's safe havens in western Pakistan have become a reality. And the gains made by the Coalition in Afghanistan have now officially been wiped away with the peace agreement in the newly established Islamic Emirate of Waziristan.

 

[Calabrio]

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Pakistan's prime minister has disputed a news report that said Osama bin Laden would not face capture if he agreed to lead a "peaceful life."

Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz told CNN on Wednesday that "anybody who is wanted or is a terrorist or has committed acts of terror anywhere in the world and is wanted, there is no immunity for such people."

And, Aziz added, that "this notion that anybody who has a record as a terrorist will get safe haven -- we would not even think of doing that."

The detail about the al Qaeda leader came in an ABC news report about Tuesday's signing of a peace agreement between pro-Taliban tribal leaders and the government, a pact designed to end violence in the restive northern Waziristan region along the Pakistan-Afghan border.

ABC quoted Pakistani officials as saying that bin Laden would not be subject to capture in Pakistan, if he agreed to lead a "peaceful life."

He "would not be taken into custody ... as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen," the network quoted Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan as saying.

While Aziz expressed incredulity at the idea that bin Laden would be immune from capture, he called the agreement with tribal leaders "very wise." Bin Laden is thought to be hunkering down somewhere along the rugged border region.

"We are at peace with this agreement," said Aziz.

Under the deal, Pakistani troops would halt its military campaign and militants would halt attacks on Pakistani forces in northern Waziristan and stop cross-border raids into Afghanistan targeting U.S. and Afghan troops.

The agreement also envisions that foreigners living in northern Waziristan would be asked to leave Pakistan, but those who cannot leave could live peacefully, respecting the law of the land and the agreement.

The Pakistani Foreign Ministry disputed "a statement attributed to the spokesperson of the president by ABC News that Osama bin Laden will not face capture in Pakistan if he agrees to lead a 'peaceful life.' "

"The spokesperson said that this is a gross misreporting. The president's spokesperson, Major General Shaukat Sultan, was speaking of the peace agreement signed on the 5th September 2006 with the tribal leaders in north Waziristan.

"In response to a question, Major General Shaukat Sultan stated that foreigners settled in the area would be allowed to stay there on the condition that they live peacefully and abide by law. At no stage during the conversation he said that this was applicable to Osama Bin Laden. "

In Washington, Pakistani Ambassador to the U.S. Mahmud Ali Durrani underscored Aziz's position, saying Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan had been "grossly misquoted in a section of U.S. media today."

"Pakistan is on the hunt for Osama bin Laden and his associates. If he is in Pakistan, today or any time later, he will be taken into custody and brought to justice. No amnesty has been granted to Osama bin Laden."

In Kabul on Wednesday, Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf was meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai to discuss the war on terror, and security cooperation as the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks approaches.

Both countries have been critical of each other for not doing enough to capture militants.