What's new

CIA asked Blackwater to take out AQ Khan

I am also confused that what would US get by killing Dr. AQ Khan. I think they would rather like to kidnap him for interrogation to know
1. How much technology was provided to Iran
2. And probably that how far Iran could be in attaining a nuc bomb. I understand that he would not have the answer for this question but if he helped Iran then he should have some idea at least.

I think that's what US would like to do rather then assassinating him.

Allah Dr Sahib ki hifazat karay, ameen.

---

Also.. why is this security service head revealing this secret info like this?? Things are never as simple as they look. There must be a bigger game behind this scene
 
.
First of all guys, please look at who is posting the news. The member - nawazshahzad have always posted conspiracy theories in the past.

His past posting are:
* Offensive Activities of US & Indian Diplomats In Pakistan
* Operation Gladio-Style War Against Pakistan
* Obama’s speech on Afghanistan: A compendium of Lies
* Genghis Khans Of The West
* Us Swine Flu Spray Plane Shot Down In China
* Alert: India Preparing for Nuclear War?
* To Pentagon’s Pakistani Adviser Ahmed Rashid: What’s Wrong With Pakistan’s Interests?
* Is It USA? Behind Terrorist Attacks in Pakistan
* Can Mrs. Clinton Control CIA In Afghanistan?

All the news posted by this member 10 line story lines with a conspiracy theories with not much context.

Unless you are Zaid Hamid types, I wont put so much value to this news. Unfortunately, the situation in Pakistan is bad that young kids are getting drawn to this conspiracy theories to find answer. But conspiracy theories dont solve the real cause that is causing these discrete bombings. Hope the intelligent and educated folks spend some time to show some light to these kids else they will follow these conspiracy theorists.
 
.
Here is that part of teh interview:
Among the team’s targets, according to a source familiar with the program, was Mamoun Darkazanli, an al-Qaeda financier living in Hamburg who had been on the agency’s radar for years because of his ties to three of the 9/11 hijackers and to operatives convicted of the 1998 bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa. The C.I.A. team supposedly went in “dark,” meaning they did not notify their own station—much less the German government—of their presence; they then followed Darkazanli for weeks and worked through the logistics of how and where they would take him down. Another target, the source says, was A. Q. Khan, the rogue Pakistani scientist who shared nuclear know-how with Iran, Libya, and North Korea. The C.I.A. team supposedly tracked him in Dubai. In both cases, the source insists, the authorities in Washington chose not to pull the trigger. Khan’s inclusion on the target list, however, would suggest that the assassination effort was broader than has previously been acknowledged. (Says agency spokesman Gimigliano, “[The] C.I.A. hasn’t discussed—despite some mischaracterizations that have appeared in the public domain—the substance of this effort or earlier ones.”)

The source familiar with the Darkazanli and Khan missions bristles at public comments that current and former C.I.A. officials have made: “They say the program didn’t move forward because [they] didn’t have the right skill set or because of inadequate cover. That’s untrue. [The operation continued] for a very long time in some places without ever being discovered. This program died because of a lack of political will.”


January 2010: Adam Ciralsky on Blackwater | vanityfair.com

Long interview.
 
.
Daily Times Monitor

LAHORE: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had asked private security contractor Blackwater Worldwide to kill Dr AQ Khan, the Pakistani scientist “who shared nuclear know-how with Iran, Libya, and North Korea”, agency’s founder Erik Prince admitted in an interview with Vanity Fair.

According to a source who spoke to the magazine, the authorities in Washington “chose not to pull the trigger”, however, adding “Dr Khan’s inclusion on the target list would suggest that the assassination effort was broader than has previously been acknowledged”.

Admission: The New York Times (NYT) reported that Prince also admitted to participating in some of the CIA’s most sensitive operations, including raids on suspected militants in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now known as Xe Services, “Blackwater’s role in both wars changed sharply when its guards began providing security for CIA operatives in the field”.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
 
.
that is why anti americans is on the rise in pakistan. now obviously gud america would have denied planin any such thing if the trigger would have been pulled.
 
.
wow! I am surprised to hear that Americans tried to kill AQ Khan. I am wondering why the Pakistan govt. is not asking for explanations from Americans? AQ Khan is regarded as father of the nuclear bomb in your country and Americans tried to kill him and I hear no response from PA or the govt. No mainstream news media is carrying this news. Why is Pakistani media silent?

PA was worried about KL bill and created so much news, but no one is speaking against this obvious attack on Pakistan's value as ally or Pakistan's respect and honor.
 
.
These balckwater assassins were killing innocent americans in New Orleans during the katrina flood........killing innocent iraqi's.......fighting alongside the georgian army against the russian's and now the GOP has opened it's doors to them.
According to a former employee,who remains anonymous for his safety,the owner of blackwater E.D Prince "views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe,"
and that his network of companies,which now go by Xe Services LLC, "encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life."

Link... Blackwater on Anti-Islam Crusade: Ex-employees - IslamOnline.net - News
 
.
Instead ISI should kill AQ Khan first, he is spreading propaganda against our nuke program in the western press and is a traitor now.

The real founders of our nuke program were Munir Ahmad Khan, Abdus Salam and others.
 
.
So you want answers? You really want the truth, But you can't handle the truth. :lol:

If you know the answer, post it here. If you don't, then shut up.


1.They would be eliminating a man who could proliferate nuclear technology to various nations like iran, north korea etc.

Iran and North Korea already have the technology, there is nothing left to smuggle to them. And the whole world knows it was not he but the Pakistani establishments that did the proliferation. After having already accused, confessed, and disgraced in front of the whole world, neither he nor the Pakistani establishments can take the risk of further proliferation because the next proliferation means nukes going to the terrorists. Such a scenario will be the perfect excuse for all the countries to jump over Pakistan and snatch its nukes

2.In view of the many letters of the man now made public , where he openly fumes against the military establishment and the isi , the blame could be shifted onto these agencies by proper media management. This would turn the pakistani public against these institutions , to the joy of cia/usa/neocons/zionists/western crusaders.:victory::chilli::victory:

It means he is a threat to the ISI and PA and not to the Americans, what would the CIA get by assassinating him?
 
.
If you know the answer, post it here. If you don't, then shut up.

Iran and North Korea already have the technology, there is nothing left to smuggle to them. And the whole world knows it was not he but the Pakistani establishments that did the proliferation. After having already accused, confessed, and disgraced in front of the whole world, neither he nor the Pakistani establishments can take the risk of further proliferation because the next proliferation means nukes going to the terrorists. Such a scenario will be the perfect excuse for all the countries to jump over Pakistan and snatch its nukes
Pakistani nuclear technology of the early 90's is nothing compared toit's technology now. Moreover bomb making requires not only the designs but also the raw material to make it with.All these need to be kept out of bounds to some countries.


It means he is a threat to the ISI and PA and not to the Americans, what would the CIA get by assassinating him?
the benifit is, as I have already stated , the pakistani public would be turned against these institutions(isi & military). Once that is done there is nothing in this world that can stop pakistan from going into chaos and anarchy , giving the nato/western powers an excuse to snatch away pak's nukes.
 
.
that is why anti americans is on the rise in pakistan. now obviously gud america would have denied planin any such thing if the trigger would have been pulled.

Every one in Pakistan is not blind!
Shall we forget how KL bill draft was influenced by indians and to sell it to Pakistan's unpopular govt. i wonder how much it cost to US!
Now this document alone will be a living proof of US attempts to conquer Pak army with complicity of new regime.
Leting india setup terror camps in afghanistan against Pakistan is enough to have love of victim families.
And this is just little glimpse of US gifts to Pakistani nation... a nation who is paying for US war hysteria. We let US and Inidan to transit their wepons and stuff free of cost valuing billions of dollars / year and they return us death and worst media projection.
We have long history of such betrayals:
US left Pakistan ‘defenceless’ : Kissinger’s ’76 remarks revealed

By Anwar Iqbal

WASHINGTON, Dec 25: The United States would also have built a nuclear bomb if it were in Pakistan’s position after India’s first nuclear test in 1974, according to former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

Mr Kissinger made these remarks while chairing a State Department meeting on July 9, 1976 to discuss former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s efforts to buy a nuclear reprocessing plant from France.The details of this meeting were released recently along with other secret documents from that period.

“What he wants is to build a bomb,” the-then under secretary of state Philip Habib tells the meeting while talking about Mr Bhutto’s intentions for acquiring a reprocessing plant.

“If you were in his place you would do the same thing,” Mr Kissinger responded. “I must say I have some sympathy for Bhutto in this,” he added.

“We are doing nothing to help him on conventional arms; we are going ahead and selling nuclear fuel to India even after they exploded a bomb and then for this little project we are coming down on him like a tonne of bricks.”

According to the documents, the meeting also discussed a joint proposal by the former Shah of Iran and Mr Bhutto to build a multinational nuclear reactor in Pakistan to be run jointly by the two countries. The proposal, however, was never implemented as Americans felt that this would enable both Iran and Pakistan to acquire nuclear technology.

“Gentlemen, there are few countries in the world which by necessity or choice are still allies of ours. There is something indecent about our always proving that we are strong by kicking our allies in the teeth,” he observed.

“The Pakistanis don’t even have the appearance of a credible defence. What they have asked for from us is piddling compared to what the Indians have. I don’t think it adds to the stature of the United States to force an ally to be defenceless.”

Mr Kissinger then explained how he planned to convince Mr Bhutto to give up his nuclear plan.

“First, the only way we are going to get him off this reprocessing plant is to give him a reactor … Secondly, we should tell him that we will take steps to enhance his conventional defence. We can’t tell Bhutto that he can’t have either a conventional or a nuclear defence. Non-proliferation is not our only objective in South Asia.”

Commenting on the balance of power between India and Pakistan, Mr Kissinger observed: “An imbalance is being created in which Pakistan is totally dependent on India. There is no question that we can break Pakistan’s back because they have made the mistake of allying themselves with us.”
 
Last edited:
.
But what would the CIA gain by assassinating A.Q. Khan?

Check out the timings when they tried to kill AQ. US has everything to gain once CIA killed or kills AQ.

Its only matter of time when US would want a civil unrest and anarchy rather a civil war.

You can understand AQ's assassination can accomplish many goals for CIA.

1. It can malign Pakistan Army by putting the blame on them.

2. It can malign ISI by putting blame on it.

3. Thus creating further rift between Public and ISI/Army.

4. As AQ is regarded as Hero by 90% of Pakistanis with some know how of nuclear program and its importance, so anything like that could turn the majority against not only any sitting government but also against the army.

5. Any such scenario will create a civil unrest, further making the situation difficult.
 
.
Blackwaters is like CIA's "BHAI LOG" which are granted "SUPARI" to do the politically unforgiveable act for CIA.

This world is being ruled by the same jungle rule, what has changed are gadgets, instead of stone tools and axes, Guns and rockets are used, no difference otherwise.
 
.
Thanks for your efforts Jana, now I will state why am I so skeptical about such a situation arising.

Check out the timings when they tried to kill AQ. US has everything to gain once CIA killed or kills AQ.

Its only matter of time when US would want a civil unrest and anarchy rather a civil war.

You can understand AQ's assassination can accomplish many goals for CIA.

1. It can malign Pakistan Army by putting the blame on them.

2. It can malign ISI by putting blame on it.

3. Thus creating further rift between Public and ISI/Army.

From my point of view, hardly anyone there in Pakistan would think that termination of A.Q. Khan would serve any purpose for the ISI/PA. Any harm to Pakistani heroes of the stature of A.Q. Khan would point the finger outwards, i.e, India, the US, Israel etc., and not inwards, i.e, ISI or the PA or even the civilian government. I think every Pakistani can see that.

4. As AQ is regarded as Hero by 90% of Pakistanis with some know how of nuclear program and its importance, so anything like that could turn the majority against not only any sitting government but also against the army.

5. Any such scenario will create a civil unrest, further making the situation difficult.

Don't know about the 4th point, because Pakistanis look at the PA and the ISI as indispensable pillars of Pakistan. Patriotism flows through their quarters. No Pakistani would think that the PA or the ISI would leave any stone unturned in protecting A.Q. Khan.

However, about your 5th point, yes I agree there might be some kind of civil unrest. But my understanding is that such civil unrest will only deepen the already vastly spread anti-Americanism in Pakistan. I don't think that will be very beneficial for the CIA. And if it happens JFK style, when the main culprits are not found, everyone is going to call out on the Americans and Indians and Israelis. Sounds counterproductive to me.

My take on this: When you take into consideration the efforts (by the CIA) required to assassinate A.Q. Khan, and the risks in doing so, the rewards barely offset the investment. It is not like terminating A.Q. Khan would make Pakistan disappear or make it a tamed cat of the US.

I have thought hard and went through many resources, but failed to find any advantage that CIA would gain by finishing off A.Q. Khan. May be I can't see anything, may be there isn't anything to be seen.
 
.
Busy i think if the claim came from any Pakistani paper or leader you would have shunned it by calling it a conspiracy theory but now as it came from their own yankees.

And i would again say that Pakistanis consider AQ a hero and let me clear it if anyone kills him, the fall out would be on ISI simple as that. Thats what CIA is trying to do for last two years. CIA is trying hard and cashing on every opportunity to malign the image of Pakistan Army and ISI.

Musharraf Government had the information and he had put him in house arrest for his safety otherwise there was hardly anything which the world did not know about him or our nuclear program.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom