Congress turns against Pakistan

[SMC]

gubbi - just for you. This is many months before 9/11.

I know you won't accept but hey, at least I tried to cure the delusion.

 

[Menace2Society]

I just do not understand the logic behind the US congress wanting to cut off aid to Pakistan. Don't they understand if that happens then we will cut the supply line and their 150,000 troops will be eaten alive by the Afghans. I hope they do cut off the aid actually, gives the Afghans a chance to send some bodybags back to the US. A good US soldier is a dead one!

 

[SMC]

US pays Taliban to not fight them. The day US stops paying them, the day bodybags to the order of hundreds/week will arrive in the US.

 

[Solomon2]

You could argue that, but he's arguing against the claim that Pakistan created Taliban, which is of course a lie.

No, AZ's claim was much more sweeping:

as for Pakistan ''installing'' taleban in Afghanistan --that is baseless propaganda and far from reality.

and the Ambassador's account directly contradicts it.

Look, guys, it all boils down to Kerry. Obama is not Bush or Hilary or McCain: Obama always placed himself as the candidate willing to act in defiance of the government of Pakistan's wishes. But on matters he doesn't feel strongly on, like aid to Pakistan, Obama defers to Congress. The ex-congressman CIA director's and House Speaker's opposing opinions cancel each other out. So it all boils down to pro-GoP Senator Kerry (whom I detest) and his opinion, and he'll be returning to Pakistan in the next few days.

 

[toxic_pus]

Nah, I'll make it even shorter. The WoT wouldn't have happened had the US provided evidence that OBL is behind 9/11.

Your explanation is really bizarre. Seems like you and bharatis are now desperately trying to find even as ambiguous links that Pakistan can have to 9/11 as possible, and by those links then claim Pakistan is responsible for everything happening in the region. Sort of like one of 9/11 jihadist drinking Pakistani tea and then bharatis using that as a link.

Now here's a newsflash for you. Taliban didn't carry out the attacks. Al Qaeda did. Yes, AQ was in Afghanistan, but that is negated by the fact that AQ was ready to hand over OBL.

This is exactly the 'tangled web' that Sir Walter Scott was talking about.

You still don't get it, do you? Had there been no Taliban there wouldn't have been a OBL hiding in Afghanistan, no complication of law regarding sharing of evidence (see below) and therefore no Yankee hopping mad in your backyard. Perhaps, who knows, there wouldn't even be a 9/11.

Is that so hard to piece all together?

Secondly, you want to talk about Pakistan creating Taliban. Perhaps, selectively, you forget the role of US in doing so.

Perhaps, selectively, you forget the role of overwhelmingly enthusiastic Pakistan, bending over backwards like a contortionist in a circus, in aiding US doing it.

But even that is not important considering whole thing could have been avoided had Bush not made a senseless decision.

So in a nutshell: The WoT wouldn't have happened had Bush not made a senseless decision and provide evidence to Taliban.

To the best of my understanding, Taliban regime of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, which was the name given to Afghanistan by the Taliban, was only recognized officially by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates. UN still recognizes the government of Burhanuddin Rabbani. Like it or not. Technically, as per international law, Afghanistan was, in 2001, without a functioning government. US was under not obligation to share any evidence with Taliban. Taliban was and continues to be a terrorist organisation, nurtured by your country.

PS: Btw, a Pakistani was indeed involved in 9/11. He is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

 

[AAtish]

PS: Btw, a Pakistani was indeed involved in 9/11. He is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Proof?? Any evidence? or just word of mouth??

 

[AAtish]

No, AZ's claim was much more sweeping:
and the Ambassador's account directly contradicts it.

Look, guys, it all boils down to Kerry. Obama is not Bush or Hilary or McCain: Obama always placed himself as the candidate willing to act in defiance of the government of Pakistan's wishes. But on matters he doesn't feel strongly on, like aid to Pakistan, Obama defers to Congress. The ex-congressman CIA director's and House Speaker's opposing opinions cancel each other out. So it all boils down to pro-GoP Senator Kerry (whom I detest) and his opinion, and he'll be returning to Pakistan in the next few days.

Playing the old good cop bad copy strategy eh?

 

[SMC]

This is exactly the 'tangled web' that Sir Walter Scott was talking about.

You still don't get it, do you? Had there been no Taliban there wouldn't have been a OBL hiding in Afghanistan, no complication of law regarding sharing of evidence (see below) and therefore no Yankee hopping mad in your backyard. Perhaps, who knows, there wouldn't even be a 9/11.

Is that so hard to piece all together?

You want to talk about how there would've been no Taliban nothing would've happened. Well nothing would've happened had US not provided support either. And nothing would've happened if Osama's mother decided to not have an intercourse. Point is that Taliban willing to hand over OBL is the most relevant way in which WoT could've been avoided. THEY WERE WILLING TO FIX THEIR WRONG. Just like bharatis say that they supported LTTE and then fixed that wrong. Well Taliban was willing to do the same. Pakistan supported Taliban and yadi yada - well that becomes irrelevant when it becomes clear that Taliban was willing to hand him over.

Why does complication of sharing evidence come up? Just share the evidence and get it over with. The whole part about complication of evidence is funny altogether. Why the complication, if you have the evidence?

Perhaps, selectively, you forget the role of overwhelmingly enthusiastic Pakistan, bending over backwards like a contortionist in a circus, in aiding US doing it.

Ah, here we go again with putting words in mouth, and trying to sound smart. When I said Pakistan had a part in this, that part included supporting US. But Pakistan supporting Taliban becomes irrelevant, again, when it is obvious that those Taliban were willing to hand over OBL.

To the best of my understanding, Taliban regime of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, which was the name given to Afghanistan by the Taliban, was only recognized officially by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates. UN still recognizes the government of Burhanuddin Rabbani. Like it or not. Technically, as per international law, Afghanistan was, in 2001, without a functioning government. US was under not obligation to share any evidence with Taliban. Taliban was and continues to be a terrorist organisation, nurtured by your country.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...9-once-upon-time-usa-invited-taliban-usa.html



Busted? Huh? They dealt with them before anyway.

US didn't cite Taliban's illegitimacy as a reason. They just said we know he's guilty and whatnot and carried on with the attack. They wanted OBL and that's it. Just hand the damn evidence and get it over with. You could argue that the US was under no obligation to give the evidence, but it could've done so and the war would've never happened. But what is CRITICALLY IMPORTANT is that this was not cited as the reason. You can cite it on a forum, but US needs to cite in a press conference or something.

Instead, a senseless decision was made and that decision has lead the region to where it is.

PS: Btw, a Pakistani was indeed involved in 9/11. He is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

He is also a Kuwaiti citizen.



And btw, does him being Pakistani make 9/11 all Pakistan's fault and WoT all Pakistan's fault as your fellow bharatis are suggesting?

The overall point they're making is that it is all Pakistan's fault where the region is today. Obviously that's BS. Even with the most anti-Pakistani analysis would it be at least half US's fault as they were the primary financiers and weapons provider for the Mujhaideen.

Of course the objective analysis shows that the whole reason why the region is where it's today is because of a senseless decision made by Bush.

BTW, to your point about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being Pakistani. Believe it or not, whole world doesn't revolve around bharat. Contrary to what you believe, Pakistan isn't look at as the end-all of the problem, or even primary part of the problem. It's Pakistan, Afghanistan, several Arab countries, Somalia, some North African countries, etc. US knows this. Bharatis though are fixated on Pakistan.

 

[toxic_pus]

Proof?? Any evidence? or just word of mouth??

Oh, the news is confirmed by my 1st cousin's ex-girlfriend's dad's best friend's wife's brother's boss who knows someone in Pakistan, whose wife's father's neighbour's cousin's driver used to know the maid who used to work for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Or you could use google.

 

[SMC]

No, AZ's claim was much more sweeping:
and the Ambassador's account directly contradicts it.

Look, guys, it all boils down to Kerry. Obama is not Bush or Hilary or McCain: Obama always placed himself as the candidate willing to act in defiance of the government of Pakistan's wishes. But on matters he doesn't feel strongly on, like aid to Pakistan, Obama defers to Congress. The ex-congressman CIA director's and House Speaker's opposing opinions cancel each other out. So it all boils down to pro-GoP Senator Kerry (whom I detest) and his opinion, and he'll be returning to Pakistan in the next few days.

In fact Haqqani is talking about Pakistan's support for Taliban, which is not the same as creating Taliban. Yes, you could argue that Pakistan's support was cruicial, but that support was after Taliban was already there. Pakistan didn't "create" taliban.

 

[53fd]

Ultimately, Congress writes the check since Congress approves the budget.

There generally has to be approval from the US Congress for the US to wage war, however, there are plenty of cases (such as this Libya 'war'. Earlier examples include Nicaragua, Yugoslavia, Korea) where wars were bypassed (not approved) from the Congress's approval on the basis of some 'technicality'. Then there is another situation where wars are authorized through UN Security Council Resolutions, & funded by Congress. In other words, if a war is not approved by the Congress, UN Security Council Resolutions can always be used by the US to 'legitimately' start wars.

So you're right in what you say. Also, there is a difference between what one odd Congressman/Congresswoman thinks; & what the US Congress thinks.

 

[SMC]

Oh, the news is confirmed by my 1st cousin's ex-girlfriend's dad's best friend's wife's brother's boss who knows someone in Pakistan, whose wife's father's neighbour's cousin's driver used to know the maid who used to work for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Or you could use google.

The bharati mentality is really astounding.

He was born to Pakistani parents in Kuwait. That's the only link he had to Pakistan. I am not sure how that shows that Pakistan had much or even little to do with 9/11. He was found in Pakistan, yes, but he was present in Afghanistan at the time of 9/11.

 

[SMC]

toxic_pus - In fact Taliban's illegimitacy becomes completely irrelevant considering they were interestered in working via a 3rd neutral country, such as KSA, Pakistan, or UAE. So that's the end of that. Again, Taliban didn't carry out 9/11 and were willing to hand over OBL so any arguments regarding that are basically crack pot.

 

[toxic_pus]

You want to talk about how there would've been no Taliban nothing would've happened. Well nothing would've happened had US not provided support either. And nothing would've happened if Osama's mother decided to not have an intercourse.

Sure you can go back to the point when someone in middle of Africa suddenly stood up and started to walk on two legs many millenia ago and claim if that hadn't happened nothing would have happened to Pakistan. However, the point is, if Pakistan had conducted itself in a manner that is expected of a rational state, nothing of this would have happened. Your irrationality, symbolised by Taliban, is your cross. No one else's.

Point is that Taliban willing to hand over OBL is the most relevant way in which WoT could've been avoided. THEY WERE WILLING TO FIX THEIR WRONG. Just like bharatis say that they supported LTTE and then fixed that wrong. Well Taliban was willing to do the same. Pakistan supported Taliban and yadi yada - well that becomes irrelevant when it becomes clear that Taliban was willing to hand him over.

Pretty much relevant. Taliban willing to hand over OBL after they realised that their posterior would be handed over to them, is pretty much useless. They had more than enough time to hand him over. Even before 9/11. For other reasons.

Why does complication of sharing evidence come up? Just share the evidence and get it over with. The whole part about complication of evidence is funny altogether. Why the complication, if you have the evidence?

Because if you want to share evidence with Taliban, then you have to recognize that regime first. A government doesn't share any evidence or info with every person it comes across. That person needs an established legal status. Taliban had none.

Ah, here we go again with putting words in mouth, and trying to sound smart. When I said Pakistan had a part in this, that part included supporting US. But Pakistan supporting Taliban becomes irrelevant, again, when it is obvious that those Taliban were willing to hand over OBL.

I doubt if you actually understand what putting words in one's mouth mean. Anyway, maybe you should go back and read what I have written. It clearly acknowledges US role. Or so I would assume from the phrases 'fought an American war' or 'aiding US doing it'. May be you should pay attention before flying off the handle. Point is, nobody forced you to fight their war. You did it because you felt it would help you in the long run. And that's what got you to where you are today.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...9-once-upon-time-usa-invited-taliban-usa.html



Busted? Huh? They dealt with them before anyway.

I R R E L E V A N T. Dealing is not the same as diplomatically recognizing a regime. We dealt with Israel for 40 odd years. But recognized Israel only in 1991.

US didn't cite Taliban's illegitimacy as a reason. They just said we know he's guilty and whatnot and carried on with the attack. They wanted OBL and that's it. Just hand the damn evidence and get it over with. You could argue that the US was under no obligation to give the evidence, but it could've done so and the war would've never happened. But what is CRITICALLY IMPORTANT is that this was not cited as the reason. You can cite it on a forum, but US needs to cite in a press conference or something.

What they cited, or not, is again irrelevant. Law is law, whether you scream it out from every rooftop or whisper it into one's ears or completely remain silent.

Instead, a senseless decision was made and that decision has lead the region to where it is.

Sure, letting Afghanistan remain under the brutal oppression of Taliban would have been sensible. That evil Yankee...

He is also a Kuwaiti citizen.

Keyword is 'also'.

And btw, does him being Pakistani make 9/11 all Pakistan's fault and WoT all Pakistan's fault as your fellow bharatis are suggesting?

The analogy you cited seemed like you are asking for Pakistan connection. I just gave you that. May be you should be careful about how you construct your analogy.

BTW, to your point about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being Pakistani. Believe it or not, whole world doesn't revolve around bharat. Contrary to what you believe, Pakistan isn't look at as the end-all of the problem, or even primary part of the problem. It's Pakistan, Afghanistan, several Arab countries, Somalia, some North African countries, etc. US knows this. Bharatis though are fixated on Pakistan.

Wonderful. You actually think it is a good thing that Pakistan is clubbed with Somalia and North African countries. WOW. What a defense.

'We are not the only problem in the world. See there is Somalia, North African countries....'

 

[toxic_pus]

The bharati mentality is really astounding.

He was born to Pakistani parents in Kuwait. That's the only link he had to Pakistan. I am not sure how that shows that Pakistan had much or even little to do with 9/11. He was found in Pakistan, yes, but he was present in Afghanistan at the time of 9/11.

So. How does that prove that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not a Pakistani. Did I make any other claim?