Former ISI chief: Hiding Osama a victory

[Capt.Popeye]

So unnamed sources for the win for bharatis now? Interesting how you guys have come a whole 180 degrees from the days when you used to call other people conspiracy theorists, and are now full out bathing yourself in conspiracy theories.

Can one find anything other than "unnamed sources" in Pakistan?
After all its a State that has elevated the doctrine of "Plausible Deniability" to Divine commandment levels.

Apart from making an awesome contribution of the expression "Non-State Actors" to our Lexicon.

Are Probity, Accountability and Transparency; considered to be 'admirable attributes' in your neck of the woods?

 

[Yeti]

He is not stupid but smart as he is hedging his bets with the difa e pakistan the sickening group who held dua for their leader Bin ladin. They are a true force to be reckoned with in Pakistan because of the widspread wahabi brainwashing that goes on in their madrasas they will have endless converts to their sick cult who will love to blow themselves up killing 'kafirs' to get their hands on 72 houris in heaven.

 

[Secur]

Hamid Gul was fighting on the front lines and defending Pakistan

So , why did we need that defense in the first place back then , if I may ask ? Why , exactly ?

Was the USSR going to come to the warm waters as the myth goes ?

 

[SMC]

Can one find anything other than "unnamed sources" in Pakistan?
After all its a State that has elevated the doctrine of "Plausible Deniability" to Divine commandment levels.

Apart from making an awesome contribution of the expression "Non-State Actors" to our Lexicon.

Are Probity, Accountability and Transparency; considered to be 'admirable attributes' in your neck of the woods?

So which part of your post was actually rebutting, in any way, that the sources being used are unnamed?

 

[SMC]

Lucky you, you don't have to play dumb....You said that the U.S. gave Pakistan a certificate saying that it was not involved. I disagreed & have shown you statements to the contrary. You, on the other hand are yet to prove your claim. Chalk one up for me.....

This is what you said earlier. I've already mentioned this multiple times, but you seem to be ignoring it. So now I have to explicitly quote you:

The Americans cannot possible say anything different publicly.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...ief-hiding-osama-victory-7.html#ixzz2YsMuYl1c

Are you changing your statement, saying that Americans did in fact say something publicly?

So yes, given above, you'll continue playing dumb here and not show me that the official US government stance is that Pakistan government was involved.

You know deep down that there exists no official US government state claiming that Pakistan was involved. There are statements of speculation, but no clear accusation. Generally if a state officially believes in something, it will be documented somewhere. Please find that, and post it here. If individuals within a government speculate, it does not get documented because that's their own personal belief and not one shared by the state. So, as mentioned, feel free to give some documentation about US state even believing, let alone providing evidence.

Not good analogy that. Osama Bin Laden was found in Pakistan within sight of one of your landmark military institutions. We know that LeT chief Hafiz Saeed, a very close associate of your intelligence services was in constant touch with him. Pakistan was supposedly hunting for Bin Laden but yet couldn't find him even when he lived so close to your military institutions in a garrison town. When you find the TTP chief in India, we'll talk similarities....

It is a perfect analogy, given we've actually had terrorists prisoners admitting to getting support from Bharat.

Indian RAW Gives us Money & Gives Targets to Hit in Pakistan - Pakistani Taliban Admit.flv - YouTube

As I have said repeatedly, you have a very poor understanding of what constitutes a conspiracy theory. Something where the preponderance of evidence might suggest a particular conclusion does not qualify. The nonsense you spout on 9/11 & 26/11 qualifies because there the weight of evidence lies against your proposition.

You can believe whatever you want about what constitutes a conspiracy theory. There is no "preponderance of evidence". There is in fact, no evidence. Circumstantial evidence is not admissible, you know that damn well. What you spout here is a conspiracy theory even by its narrowest definition. You either:

a) full well that you're making a conspiracy theory, and are playing dumb
b) You have NO idea what a conspiracy theory is.

"Evidence lies against my proposition" are you trying hard to make me laugh? More like, lack of shred of evidence against my proposition.

9/11 is a PERFECT analogy, because one can argue it is inconceivable to believe that a state as big and powerful as US was not at least complicit. Note, I am not argue for or against any inside job in 9/11, I am merely saying that would be just as valid an argument as what you're making.

Evidence exists simply in the fact that Osama Bin Laden, a man Pakistan supposedly searched for & repeated pronounced as being dead or most certainly not being in Pakistan, was found guess where...yup, Pakistan! Why that would not suggest collusion escapes me.

That is circumstantial evidence, and I am sure you know that is not admissible evidence. I am pretty sure you're one of those bharatis who would claim that TTP leadership being in Afghanistan is not evidence of NATO support for TTP.

Are you now claiming gross incompetence as an excuse? The burden on proof is on you, not as you mistakenly suggest on those who accuse Pakistan of collusion.

You've got this all wrong. You, or the accusing state, needs to provide the evidence. Clearly you've got no idea what you're talking about, if you speak non sense such as Pakistan needs to prove itself not guilty. If Pakistan was already deemed guilty then UN would've already said so. Being deemed guilty is, for e.g., UN deeming LeT guilty for Mumbai attacks. Or in the case of US, US would've created sanctions (this came from yourself as well). There is nothing remotely similar here. And "remotely" is actually putting it mildly. So again, I must say that you're playing dumb or you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

You need to prove that you didn't know & pray & hope that someone, somewhere actually believes that.

Actually, it seems like all the states in the world believe "that". Given we've had no repercussions for such accusations, nor any actual open accusations from any state. Of course the exception is bharat, and Afghanistan. But really, no one cares about that.

The rest of us will take what we see at face value in the absence of evidence suggesting otherwise. OBL was found in Pakistan. Close to your military. Period.

So you're saying rest of you will believe in conspiracy theories? Good to know. Couldn't care less.

 

[PakPrinciples]

So , why did we need that defense in the first place back then , if I may ask ? Why , exactly ?

Was the USSR going to come to the warm waters as the myth goes ?

This was no myth that is specifically why the US got involved in the Afghan-USSR civil war because they understood the USSR wanted a port in the Arabian Sea as confirmed by Selig S. Harrison ("Baluch Nationalism and Superpower Rivalry" in International Security; Winter 1980/1981 [Vol. 5, No. 3] pg. 153).

Furthermore, the USSR had been a long standing ally of India and there are documentaries coming out of Russia where former USSR officials confirm that they assisted those Indian niggers in 1971 (a few years before the Saur revolution and they invaded Afghanistan):

Forget the idea of them eventually invading Pakistan the simple fact that they were an ally of India (who armed and defended them) warranted our involvement even if their ultimate goal was was to simply encircle us (which it definitely was not since they wanted Pakistani territory)

The BLA was created out of the BSO who were communists allied with the USSR and you simply need to look no further than their flag:
1. All Red flag
2. The five pointed star of socialism
3. The socialist torch (also once prominently displayed on the emblem of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)

Not to mention their leadership was educated in the USSR (Lt. General Abdul Qayyum, "Balochistans Commotion: What is the truth?" in Nawa-e-Waqt, May 1, 2009)

Stephen and Carol McC. Pastner wrote "Adaptations to state level politics by Southern Baloch" in "Pakistan the Long View" (1977, pg. 136) where they confirmed that the whole "Pashtunistan" movement began out of USSR Communist controlled Kabul but it was also aimed at people living in Balochistan which tapped into Ulfat Nazim's Marxist-Leninist "World Baloch Organization" based out of Baghdad with Ba'athist party backing.

The USSR was targeting Pakistan.

Hamid Gul and all those who fought the USSR are heroes and make no mistake that our involvement in defending Afghanistan from USSR invasion at the time was the right course of action.

 

[PakPrinciples]

Are all the terrorist killed by Pakistani army get a chance to defend themselves in court?

Before the Pakistani army even enters an area to conduct military operations in NWFP or FATA they warn village elders or other trusted local authorities to have the area vacated.

Those who refuse to vacate and lay down arms then take positions within heavily fortified encampments surrounded by other fighters are the ones Pakistan is forced to deal with. We make every effort to have them surrender or simply leave, which is why the US dislikes how Pakistan does things and is a point of contention but it saves lives so we don't care, before moving in.

OBL was not charged for crimes related to the 2001 attacks which they used as a precursor to invade Afghanistan nor the reason the American public even supported the invasion in the first place. So why were they pursuing him? When they attacked it was clear that he was at home with his kids and wives and by all admission he wasn't even involved in the armed struggle against the occupation in Afghanistan. So they put innocent women and children in harms way in order to assassinate one man because the truth is they knew no one would allow him to be extradited to the US and they had no way to convict him in a Pakistani or International criminal court (though I personally would have only allowed a case to move forward after those US forces responsible for the murder of Pakistani soldiers were imprisoned forever and the conspirators behind forging evidence to invade Iraq war were imprisoned as well - they cannot simply demand justice without giving any in return).

Look at all the high level arrests that Pakistan made since 2001 yet the US has made virtually no arrests because they simply execute people. Pakistan should never have cooperated with the US nor extradited anyone since it is obvious all the US does is mostly kidnap innocent people wholesale and is rarely ever able to take anyone to trial (look at Gitmo). I would prefer we cancel all extradition agreements with the US and every other country for that matter particularly if the accused is a Pakistani citizen.

Furthermore, a country (US) that is responsible for over a million deaths in the last 12 years and an immense number of human rights violations has no right to call anyone else a terrorist.

Pakistan is not obliged to assist them in any shape or form unless they are completely mindful of our strategic interests and respectful of our laws and sovereignty.

 

[Bang Galore]

Actually, it seems like all the states in the world believe "that". Given we've had no repercussions for such accusations, nor any actual open accusations from any state. Of course the exception is bharat, and Afghanistan. But really, no one cares about that.

A visit to most airports in the world holding a green Pakistani passport would quickly disabuse one of any such silly notions . Not all "repercussions" are announced in statements.

Couldn't care less.

The feeling is mutual.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

So which part of your post was actually rebutting, in any way, that the sources being used are unnamed?

I was not rebutting anything, because "there was just nothing worth rebutting at all".
Actually the rhetorical questions in my post had the answers intrinsic to them.

As they say; it is not only the Blind who cannot see and not only the Deaf who cannot hear!

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Furthermore, the USSR had been a long standing ally of India and there are documentaries coming out of Russia where former USSR officials confirm that they assisted those Indian niggers in 1971 (a few years before the Saur revolution and they invaded Afghanistan):

Did you even get a proper parental upbringing? or a reasonable education? The underlined part indicates other wise quite clearly!

 

[Secur]

This was no myth that is specifically why the US got involved in the Afghan-USSR civil war because they understood the USSR wanted a port in the Arabian Sea as confirmed by Selig S. Harrison ("Baluch Nationalism and Superpower Rivalry" in International Security; Winter 1980/1981 [Vol. 5, No. 3] pg. 153).

Furthermore, the USSR had been a long standing ally of India and there are documentaries coming out of Russia where former USSR officials confirm that they assisted those Indian niggers in 1971 (a few years before the Saur revolution and they invaded Afghanistan):

Forget the idea of them eventually invading Pakistan the simple fact that they were an ally of India (who armed and defended them) warranted our involvement even if their ultimate goal was was to simply encircle us (which it definitely was not since they wanted Pakistani territory)

The BLA was created out of the BSO who were communists allied with the USSR and you simply need to look no further than their flag:
1. All Red flag
2. The five pointed star of socialism
3. The socialist torch (also once prominently displayed on the emblem of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)

Not to mention their leadership was educated in the USSR (Lt. General Abdul Qayyum, "Balochistans Commotion: What is the truth?" in Nawa-e-Waqt, May 1, 2009)

Stephen and Carol McC. Pastner wrote "Adaptations to state level politics by Southern Baloch" in "Pakistan the Long View" (1977, pg. 136) where they confirmed that the whole "Pashtunistan" movement began out of USSR Communist controlled Kabul but it was also aimed at people living in Balochistan which tapped into Ulfat Nazim's Marxist-Leninist "World Baloch Organization" based out of Baghdad with Ba'athist party backing.

The USSR was targeting Pakistan.

Hamid Gul and all those who fought the USSR are heroes and make no mistake that our involvement in defending Afghanistan from USSR invasion at the time was the right course of action.

The Soviet Union never by its actions and statements indicated that its ultimate aim was to come to warm waters of Pakistan , you are free to prove me wrong here . This was always an assumption which was raised to disproportionate levels by the Americans and the Saudis for their own interests and blindly endorsed by the Pakistani leaders . Why ? Because Moscow only entered Afghanistan to provide some stability to the communist regime which was fast falling apart . Even then , its top commanders repeatedly warned that ' it was an exercise in futility ' and ' all the king's men and all the king's horses ' couldn't fix that country . " We believe it would be a fatal mistake to commit ground troops. If our troops went in, the situation in your country would not improve. On the contrary, it would get worse. Our troops would have to struggle not only with an external aggressor, but with a significant part of your own people. And the people would never forgive such things" — Alexei Kosygin, the Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers . Similar concerns would be raised by other Soviet leaders " full Soviet intervention "would only play into the hands of our enemies – both yours and ours " - Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet head of state . There's another famous one from Gorbachev - then the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist party that " The main reason that there has been no national consolidation so far is that Comrade Karmal is hoping to continue sitting in Kabul with our help ". There is plenty of evidence to support the fact that the Soviets were much reluctant to act in Afghanistan which they believed was a lost cause , can then the Soviets be expected to try to invade Pakistan for warm waters if they would have controlled the situation in Afghanistan ? I , personally , do not think so . An arrangement on the other hand with Islamabad once they consolidated their power in that country for access to ports , is more believable .

You do not need to post videos to prove that USSR aided Indians in the '71 war and acted against Pakistan , with whom they had great animosity since we had been , since the independence , in the American camp . You are convincing a convinced man . Neither do you need to tell me how Afghanistan has always been a thorn in Pakistan's side fomenting troubles for Pakistan by raising up settled border issues , supporting the Pashtunistan issue , creating problems in N.W.F.P. and allowing their soil to be used for anti-Pakistan activities . But the simple point is that whatever they were doing , was nothing unmanageable or even worthy of our serious considerations . Why ? Because , nobody , I say nobody in Frontier province and tribal areas was trying to secede from the country . The small Afghan intrusions in the tribal areas were taken care of , by the tribal areas , not even requiring the assistance for the regular armed forces of Pakistan . Was then the direct intervention , training and supporting the rebels in Afghanistan with the help of U.S. and the Kingdom in interest of the country ? The Afghan regime was extremely unpopular and was nearing collapse , what happened after the Soviet withdrawal after a period of uneasy peace later on , could have happened much earlier , had we not interfered . What wisdom was there then , to fight a fight of two superpowers ? The extremist ideology brought back then to gather support for the so called Jihad , by the Commander of the Faithful Zia-ul-Haq and his followers has resulted today in the widespread lawlessness , terrorism , radicalization and dangers to the integrity of the country . The special relationship forged with the Mullah or more specifically the religious authorities wasn't good for the country in the long run . The condition of Pakistan plaguing with extremely worrying problems now is mostly due to a specific brand of Islam brought in the 80's . The ideology has matured today to an instant that the extremism is thought as common thought pattern , fighting the state is encouraged , the constitution of Pakistan and democracy thought to be against Islam and the state's actions against the extremists are considered as wrong and on the whims of the Americans . People are not troubled by the fact that 50,000 of their countrymen have been killed by the terrorists , but by the army operations in the tribal areas and elsewhere . Were the military generals at the time of Soviet was , so blind , inept and incompetent , to not see the long term effects of the ideology they were bringing in and extending support to ?

Controversial statements by the man are in question , not his loyalty , services and commitment to the country .
@Armstrong Anything to add , mate ?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

The Soviet Union never by its actions and statements indicated that its ultimate aim was to come to warm waters of Pakistan , you are free to prove me wrong here . This was always an assumption which was raised to disproportionate levels by the Americans and the Saudis for their own interests and blindly endorsed by the Pakistani leaders . Why ? Because Moscow only entered Afghanistan to provide some stability to the communist regime which was fast falling apart . Even then , its top commanders repeatedly warned that ' it was an exercise in futility ' and ' all the king's men and all the king's horses ' couldn't fix that country . " We believe it would be a fatal mistake to commit ground troops. If our troops went in, the situation in your country would not improve. On the contrary, it would get worse. Our troops would have to struggle not only with an external aggressor, but with a significant part of your own people. And the people would never forgive such things" — Alexei Kosygin, the Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers . Similar concerns would be raised by other Soviet leaders " full Soviet intervention "would only play into the hands of our enemies – both yours and ours " - Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet head of state . There's another famous one from Gorbachev - then the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist party that " The main reason that there has been no national consolidation so far is that Comrade Karmal is hoping to continue sitting in Kabul with our help ". There is plenty of evidence to support the fact that the Soviets were much reluctant to act in Afghanistan which they believed was a lost cause , can then the Soviets be expected to try to invade Pakistan for warm waters if they would have controlled the situation in Afghanistan ? I , personally , do not think so . An arrangement on the other hand with Islamabad once they consolidated their power in that country for access to ports , is more believable .

You do not need to post videos to prove that USSR aided Indians in the '71 war and acted against Pakistan , with whom they had great animosity since we had been , since the independence , in the American camp . You are convincing a convinced man . Neither do you need to tell me how Afghanistan has always been a thorn in Pakistan's side fomenting troubles for Pakistan by raising up settled border issues , supporting the Pashtunistan issue , creating problems in N.W.F.P. and allowing their soil to be used for anti-Pakistan activities . But the simple point is that whatever they were doing , was nothing unmanageable or even worthy of our serious considerations . Why ? Because , nobody , I say nobody in Frontier province and tribal areas was trying to secede from the country . The small Afghan intrusions in the tribal areas were taken care of , by the tribal areas , not even requiring the assistance for the regular armed forces of Pakistan . Was then the direct intervention , training and supporting the rebels in Afghanistan with the help of U.S. and the Kingdom in interest of the country ? The Afghan regime was extremely unpopular and was nearing collapse , what happened after the Soviet withdrawal after a period of uneasy peace later on , could have happened much earlier , had we not interfered . What wisdom was there then , to fight a fight of two superpowers ? The extremist ideology brought back then to gather support for the so called Jihad , by the Commander of the Faithful Zia-ul-Haq and his followers has resulted today in the widespread lawlessness , terrorism , radicalization and dangers to the integrity of the country . The special relationship forged with the Mullah or more specifically the religious authorities wasn't good for the country in the long run . The condition of Pakistan plaguing with extremely worrying problems now is mostly due to a specific brand of Islam brought in the 80's . The ideology has matured today to an instant that the extremism is thought as common thought pattern , fighting the state is encouraged , the constitution of Pakistan and democracy thought to be against Islam and the state's actions against the extremists are considered as wrong and on the whims of the Americans . People are not troubled by the fact that 50,000 of their countrymen have been killed by the terrorists , but by the army operations in the tribal areas and elsewhere . Were the military generals at the time of Soviet was , so blind , inept and incompetent , to not see the long term effects of the ideology they were bringing in and extending support to ?

Controversial statements by the man are in question , not his loyalty , services and commitment to the country .
@Armstrong Anything to add , mate ?

You are quite right there; in the underlined part. That warm waters or "Garam Paani" BS/Canard was a lot of "Garam Hawa"/or "Hauwaa" floated by interested parties viz. the Saudis and Americans to start with. Then Zia ul Haq climbed on to that band-wagon because it helped to butress his image as the "Caliph-in Waiting" of the Islamic Crescent that could be carved through the CARs right upto Af-Pak. Now what a tremendous leap in stature that would be for someone who was just a mediocre Soldier who had missed his right calling in life----- as an oily obsequious rug salesman.

Even the fictitious claim that the Soviets wanted to walk in through Afghanistan and Pakistan was a sheer impossibility in military terms. Afghanistan had a pliable collaborationist regime. But Pakistan did not. So militarily; Pakistan was no pushover.

Then there was the other part; which was carefully suppressed by the chief proponents of this canard. The Soviet Union was a declining power already. The "Economic Gas" was fast depleting out of their system. There just no way that they could have sustained any military adventure for long anywhere. That is what forced their pull-out from Afghanistan. Not the 'fairy-tale' that the ISI and Pakistan laid them low. The biggest beneficiary of that 'fairy-tale' was meant to be Zia ul Haq; it would have firmly installed him as the divinely ordained "Sultan of Pakistan" and led the way towards being anointed the "Caliph of the Cenral Asian Ummah". But God (and Uncle Sam) decreed otherwise. They saw what a menace this man could be and acted. Unluckily for Zia and luckily(?) for Pakistan, a C-130 Herk fell out of the sky.
Why else do you think a crate of particularly tasty mangoes just blew up, instead of being eaten?

 

[pkuser2k12]

So , why did we need that defense in the first place back then , if I may ask ? Why , exactly ?

Was the USSR going to come to the warm waters as the myth goes ?

no no soviet union was angle back than known for his "peace initiatives" all around the world like USA today

to says reds will not have move forward towards Pakistan after settling in Afghanistan is a joke

both USA and Soviets were same now we have one left and see what that super duper power is doing

 

[pak-marine]

How come an ex ISI general give such sensational statements and get away isn't he under some sort of oath ? Gen Gul is a disgrace to army he is causing a lot of damage to the image of Pakistan army.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

How come an ex ISI general give such sensational statements and get away isn't he under some sort of oath ? Gen Gul is a disgrace to army he is causing a lot of damage to the image of Pakistan army.

Hamid Gul's oath of allegiance is to a entity and power other than his Nation and his 'Paltan'.
There lies the 'Rub'!!