War on Terrorism and Capturing Ossama bin Laden

[Grand Danois]

A transcript from today from 60 minutes.


Musharraf: U.S. Threatened Pakistan
Also Speaks About Country's Leaked Nuclear Secrets

Sept. 21, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Pervez Musharraf (File) (AP)

"The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age.' "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Pervez Musharraf


(CBS) President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan tells Steve Kroft that after 9/11, the U.S. threatened to bomb his country if it didn't help America's war on terrorism.

Kroft's interview with the Pakistani leader, in which he also discusses his embarrassment over his country's nuclear secrets getting into the hands of other nations, will be broadcast Sunday, Sept. 24, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Musharraf says the threat came from then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and was delivered to Musharraf's intelligence director.

"The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age,' " recalls Musharraf. It was insulting, he says. "I think it was a very rude remark." But he reacted to it in a responsible way, he tells Kroft. "One has to think and take actions in the interests of the nation, and that's what I did."

The rest of the story


Three possibilities.

1. Musharraf versioning what happended.
   
   
2. The Director of Intelligence versioned what happened.
   
   
3. The US did blatantly threaten Pakistan.

 

[Big-E]

[*]The US did blatantly threaten Pakistan.
[/LIST]

I'm sure we did. I just watched that interview and Bush pretty much threatened them again. It seems to fit with the timing of the Taliban peace treaty. If Mushareef hadn't cooperated it would have been a Pakistani invasion rather than one in Iraq. I guess now that the US is over-extended Mushareef feels he can sneak out of the US threats.

 

[Grand Danois]

I'm sure we did. I just watched that interview and Bush pretty much threatened them again. It seems to fit with the timing of the Taliban peace treaty. If Mushareef hadn't cooperated it would have been a Pakistani invasion rather than one in Iraq. I guess now that the US is over-extended Mushareef feels he can sneak out of the US threats.

I expect the answer to be 1, 2 and 3. I can easily imagine the US making it clear they would tear anyone in their way apart in the early post 911 days.

I just don't think it was put as crudely as "we will bomb you into the stone age". That's what I mean with "versioning".


It sure fits well with the increased US critisism of pakistan over the Osama issue and especially of the treaty with the tribal area.

It is a snub to the US. Perhaps a signal of a shift in relations ?

My view is that Pakistan has done a very good job of hunting down high value Al Qaida and been a good ally. Osama himself is just a very, very difficult man to catch, due to popularity and because he is in reality inactive.

 

[Big-E]

I think it will be interesting to see if Pakistan gets her arms transfers as scheduled. Any delays can definetly be attributed to the attitudes in Washingtion about the treaty.

 

[KGB]

Its Pakistani civillians and Pakistani soldiers who suffer for this "war on terror". When you ask another country to bleed for you some tact is called for. Otherwise you make Musharraff look more like a US stooge and risk getting him deposed and replaced by a leader less friendly to the US.

 

[Big-E]

Its Pakistani civillians and Pakistani soldiers who suffer for this "war on terror". When you ask another country to bleed for you some tact is called for. Otherwise you make Musharraff look more like a US stooge and risk getting him deposed and replaced by a leader less friendly to the US.

Is he a stooge for having done the thing all civilized nations should be doing? I think not. The fact that he had to be threatened is a bit disappointing. He should have offered before that action was neccessary.

The opinions had against or for the leader of Pakistan has NOTHING to do with Pakistani warriors. This is the same BS I deal with in the States. Just because I (US warrior) do what my president tells me to do does not make me (US warrior) responsible for his (Bush's) actions. We are just following orders... get over it. You should now better KGB.


Edit:
We just learned that Musharaf's reason for saying he was threatened was to increase book sales.

He also considers the way he conducts the war "samantics".

 

[LordoftheLord]

a question to BIG-F

before 9-11 when almost every child knew about osama where he lived ate and slept,why didnt the US target him when they new where osama was?? USA must have had a strict policy on osama when he started to show his nature, attacing us embassies in many different places! just tell me why didnt the us nailed his fking head down when they new where he was?? so who did a bad job?

 

[RubiconNZ]

Well....

......

 

[Red aRRow]

"The latest video release from al Qaeda, shown Thursday, reinforces the
general presumption that the world's most famous fugitive has carved out a lair for himself in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In it, you see the al Qaeda leader pick his way down boulder-strewn slopes, smile serenely to the 9/11 plotters, and address his followers inside a simple tent.

The border area is certainly lush with places to hide, and Pakistan's volatile tribal belt offers the added benefit of being off limits to American troops and intelligence agents."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2410569&page=2

Thats why I think he's still there. His own videos show it.

Thought you would like to know that the video is estimated to be atleast 5 years old.
ABC news is just proving that their editors smoke crack before embarking on writing an article by trying to pass off a 5 year old video as some new evidence.

Clinton administration, Democrats and the New world order, peace dividend lovers etc etc, world became complacent of all the messes they made during european imperialist escapades and US Soviet wars by proxy.

+ the U.S. army in Tora Bora let him off the hook when they almost had him during operation Anaconda.

 

[Big-E]

Thought you would like to know that the video is estimated to be atleast 5 years old.
ABC news is just proving that their editors smoke crack before embarking on writing an article by trying to pass off a 5 year old video as some new evidence.

Age of the video is speculation. It was shown this month and that is all that can be infered. Your remarks of the ABC staff are not consistent with your duties here.

 

[Red aRRow]

Uhhhh the video shows Ramzi bin Al Shibh who was arrested september 11th 2002. So atleast its 4 years old. Not so speculative now I guess.

 

[Big-E]

I don't see how you figured that, perhaps you could point me in the right direction.

 

[Red aRRow]

The video shows Ramzi bin Al Shibh with Osama. As Ramzi was arrested in 2002 that means the video is older than that i.e. when Ramzi bin Al Shibh had not been in custody. So at the very least it is 4 years old as 2006-2002=4

 

[tomahawk6]

US Forces in Afghanistan are around 20,000. There was some hope we could draw down as NATO came in but thats not going to happen.

Pakistan has been a good partner in the war on terror. But there are serious security issues that confront Musharef. He has little control of Wazirastan. He is fighting to put down insurgents in Baluchestan [where the natural gas reserves are]. There are Pakistani troops and border police along the Afghan border. But there is no way to close the border. Second, Pakistani fighters are coming into Afghanistan to fight with the taliban. Third, there are fundamentalist elements in the Pakistani military and intelligence/security services. This is a major secuirty problem for Musharef in fact it should be a matter of life and death as he is target number one of AQ.

If Pakistan did one thing, namely stop fighters friom entering Afghanistan that would be enough. Linik below is a sat map of a section of Waziristan to give you an idea how difficult the border region is to control. The problem with the tribes in that region is that they see AQ as fellow travelers and provide protection to them and the taliban.


http://www.maplandia.com/pakistan/f-a-t-a/n-waziristan/shagga/

 

[Big-E]

I have a question. It is no secret Musharaf has had multiple assasination attempts on his life. What would happen to Pakistan if one was succesful?

 

[WAR]

Not to worry!!

No need to worry. Pakistan maintains a proper command structure. Everyone knew what to do in any such eventuality, in which the top military and civilian hiearchy dies/ injured/ assasinated etc.

Remember, former President Zia died in a plane crash. Everything was in control.

And most importantly, Pakistan's policy on war on terror is not Musharraf-specific. This has been ratified by the Corps Commanders, foreign office, and the elected assemblies -- as being in our national interest.

 

[tomahawk6]

Any successful [god forbid] assasination of Musharaf would probably see a coup by forces allied with islamic fundamentalists. Hopefully the command structure is solid, but the radicals are very strong and its quite troubling.

 

[rabirizvi]

the video in question was supposedly been made before the 9/11 incident and it was released on its anivarsary, atleast thats what CNN claimed.
tomahawk6, it isnt that bad in Pakistan.i mean if in case Musharaf is assasinated or removed, not much of stance on "war on terror" will chance but yes with new democratic government, there will be a beaurocratic ribbon attached to it n things will go slow. and thats what Musharaf has successfully played to justify his time as President.Also western media potrays as if Bombs are being blown off in every street by radicals.i admit we do have radicals but the number aint significant enough.overwhelming Majority of Pakistaniz are very peace loving people.

 

[tomahawk6]

What is the chance that the an elected government would be islamic fundamentalist ?

 

[RubiconNZ]

Wouldn't bet against it

What is the chance that the an elected government would be islamic fundamentalist ?

At this stage I would have to say it have to be a sure thing, of course that is just from impressions from the media, and a guess some strongly felt anti western attitudes which just oozes fundemental extremism