Former ISI chief: Hiding Osama a victory

[Dillinger]

Note to self: if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and even looks like a duck, it must be a gorilla.

Or maybe Hanlon's razor is applicable in Gul baba's case?

What say you @Bang Galore, concur?

 

[Bang Galore]

Really? Really? I am the one clutching to straws? I am not the one making conspiracy theories here. I think you were meaning to tell that to yourself?

You're still failing to see the difference between the official stance of a state and what individuals within a state may believe. Or at least you're pretending to not see the difference. You yourself admitted earlier that US will not officially blame Pakistan. And that's what really matters. Please quit speculating, making conspiracy theories and move on. Or at least admit that you're a conspiracy theorist, then I couldn't care less what you say.



You still have not presented any official statement from the US state. Please bring that and come back. Your brain is filled with so much hate, that you're using the arguments of the same nature that you deplore others for using, and in the process call them "conspiracy theorists". Either you're acutely aware of your hypocrisy, and don't really care that you're such a gross hypocrite, or you're so brain dead that your hypocrisy isn't obvious to you, like it is to everyone else.

It is the U.S. President & the Defense secretary. Unlike Pakistan's President & Defence Minister, they actually have credibility when they speak on behalf of the U.S. government. It is only in Pakistan that you can get away suggesting that high officials are merely voicing their "private" opinions.

My brain is filled with no hate, not something you could ever understand.

Given what we know right now, it would a conspiracy theory to believe that there was collusion. What I am not ruling out is a conspiracy, which, if true, would obviously mean that the conspiracy theory is true. That's no different from someone keeping an open mind and not ruling out that 9/11 attacks were an inside job, but that given what we know, we have to assume that they were not an inside job.

Do you understand what constitutes a conspiracy theory? In 9/11 & 26/11, enough evidence has been presented to back the conclusions, conspiracy theory is to insist on inside job story without providing evidence & disregarding evidence already produced. In this case, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest Pakistan as a state didn't harbour OBL. There may be no direct evidence in support of it in the manner desired but that hardly qualifies as a conspiracy theory.

And again, this is an independent report, although funded by Pakistani government. The think tank does not rule out the possibility of collusion, however found no reason to believe there was collusion. I am really not sure what's so hard for you to understand about this. They are NOT saying that there was collusion. If they are merely speculating and are clear in their language that they are indeed speculating, there is no need to continuously mention it. It does not add anything to the discussion. Speculation is irrelevant here.

You still don't get it. If your own government ordered enquiry( I like how you insist they are "independent") is not ruling it out, there is no reason to assume that others cannot come to a stronger opinion on the matter. You might not like the "speculation" as you call it bit no one is obliged to humour you. Just because you seem to operate on the principle @toxic_pus suggests is no reason to expect everyone else to do the same.

Note to self: if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and even looks like a duck, it must be a gorilla.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Note to self: if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and even looks like a duck, it must be a gorilla.

Then I do see some "Gorillas" here who would like to masquerade as "Ducks"

 

[Cherokee]

Note to self: if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and even looks like a duck, it must be a gorilla.

Obviously its a gorilla . Or do you have certificate it is a Duck ??

 

[Bang Galore]

Pakistan's Osama bin Laden report is more cover-up than self-criticism

The tone may sound honest, but the notion that Bin Laden entered Pakistan in 2002 without the ISI's knowledge is risible

Tariq Ali



After the US helicopter assault on Osama bin Laden's quarters in Abbottabad and his assassination by navy Seals in 2011, a shaken Pakistani government set up a commission of inquiry, presided over by a retired judge, Javed Iqbal. Its findings, a part of which was leaked to al-Jazeera this week, reveal the country's intelligence agencies at loggerheads and in a general state of confusion.

The evidence of General Pasha, the former chief of the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, is particularly interesting, with its account of Bin Laden's travels in Pakistan following the war on Afghanistan, and explanation of how one of his aides used his Pakistani identity card to buy a plot of land not far from the Pakistan military academy. Many of these details are fascinating and the tone of the report may strike many as honest and self-critical. Yet it is worth clarifying that the overall thrust of the report is to exonerate the intelligence agencies by effectively accepting the official version that the ISI and the Federal Investigation Agency were unaware of Bin Laden's presence in the country.

The notion that Bin Laden, family and bodyguards left Afghanistan and entered Pakistan in 2002 without the knowledge and help of the ISI is risible. The report is weak on background. For example, it fails to explain that the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan was made possible only by heavy Pakistani involvement on every level: the operation was viewed by Pakistan's general headquarters as a total success, the first in its entire history. The control of Kabul and the southern part of the country supposedly provided Islamabad with "strategic depth".

The links between the ISI and the Taliban regime were intimate. There were differences on some issues but treated by the senior partner as little more than lovers' tiffs. After 9/11, the Pakistani military were instructed by Washington to facilitate the Nato occupation. General Musharraf, then president of Pakistan, asked for more time and was given two weeks. An American general warned that if Pakistan did not help it would be bombed to extinction. Musharraf caved in. This resulted in enormous tensions within the army, which was now being asked to reverse its only military triumph and help topple a government it had created. The high command held firm, but military dissidents organised three attempts on Musharraf's life and the ****** groups funded by the ISI went rogue.

This was the political atmosphere in which Bin Laden arrived in the country. Whatever the ISI's failings on the political level, there is little doubt that it is an extremely effective intelligence outfit. Its surveillance techniques are obviously not on the level of the NSA or GCHQ, but its network of well-trained agents do the business as some of their victims have testified. There is no way that Bin Laden could have slipped into the country unnoticed. He was provided with help at the highest levels in an operation that was regarded as top secret and his whereabouts were known only to three or four people, heads of the intelligence agencies.

I was informed of all this some years ago by a source in the intelligence services who had no idea where Bin Laden was but confirmed that he was in a safe house somewhere in the country. According to this source Pakistan, would hand him over if necessary, but the problem was that George W Bush only wanted his dead body and the Pakistanis were not prepared to kill "the golden goose". Obviously, nobody within the establishment (retired or not) is going to admit as much to a commission of inquiry, and Justice Iqbal could only pronounce on the basis of the evidence he was able to hear. The resulting report, as self-critical as it may sound, is therefore still a partial cover-up, as it had to be.

As far as the navy Seals are concerned, the question considered was whether the Pakistani military had any advance notification. The report suggests not and is extremely critical of the government for "dereliction of duty", concluding that "political, military intelligence and bureaucratic leadership cannot be absolved of their responsibility for the state of governance, policy planning and policy implementation that eventually rendered this national failure almost inevitable".

Perhaps. On the other hand, as General Pasha informed the inquiry, a US spy (whether CIA or DIA was not made clear) had told him contemptuously that "we can buy anyone in your country". Anyone? In which case why should one exclude the possibility that a bought person in the military helped with logistics? The details provided in this report offer a number of clues that need further exploration.

Pakistan's Osama bin Laden report is more cover-up than self-criticism | Tariq Ali | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

 

[Saleem]

relief from constipation is a victory......

 

[GURU DUTT]

well this Hamida GulBul-bulbul is a certified crack pot as he keeps on saying such stupid stuff time and again to get some free publicity its almost 25 years since he was retired after all he also has to earn some money to live a comfortable life

now about osama its realli hillarious to beleve that ISI-PA had no knowledge about the abbotabad complex and who was living in it because there are way too many doughts

1.the complex is situated just few hundred meters waay from the PMA-Kakul acadmyin abbotabad which is like IMA in dehradoon in India and COAS had just visited the academy a few weeks before the raid

2.how come the building inspecors dint raise any issue when the complex was made in clear voilation of the builduin laws of the garrison town where amlost all thye top ranking PA, ISI,PAF & PN genrals live post ritierment

3. how come the gas department dint raise any raise any quetions as to who was living there with 4 gas connection in the same complex

4.how come local police beat officer and SHO were not knowing about as to whome was living there as abbotabad bieng such an important garrison town and when there are so many high level visits how come SHO, IO or the beat officers never bothered to investigate as to who was living in such a big comlex which was clearli voilating all the buiding laws ....lolzzz if we in delhi even make a small room withowt prior notification to municipal deptt we have a visit from the building inspector and local policeman very promptlli

5. how come ISI dint knew or raised any eye brows against this complex with such fishy constuction and when it was made like a small fortress so near the PMA

6.how come there was no police in the area when the comlex was situated so near the kakul acedemy that night when the electricity was switched off misteriousli before the raid and came back mistirousli after the raid


my point is that ISI, PA hid him there for years but were waiting for the right time(US presidential elections) to make most owt of it as they themselfs dint want to hurt osama as he had such a huge following both with civilians and within the ranks of ISI and PA so they asked the US to do the dirty job though it meant it will serousli affect pakistans reputation but who cares atleast the generals will be safe from the backlash if they had done the same and potentialli the situation would have been more explosive than after the lal masjid raid

i would love to have comments on this from some pakistani posters

Thanks in advance

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Pakistan's Osama bin Laden report is more cover-up than self-criticism

Pakistan's Osama bin Laden report is more cover-up than self-criticism | Tariq Ali | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

After 9/11, the Pakistani military were instructed by Washington to facilitate the Nato occupation. General Musharraf, then president of Pakistan, asked for more time and was given two weeks. An American general warned that if Pakistan did not help it would be bombed to extinction. Musharraf caved in. This resulted in enormous tensions within the army, which was now being asked to reverse its only military triumph and help topple a government it had created. The high command held firm, but military dissidents organised three attempts on Musharraf's life and the ****** groups funded by the ISI went rogue.

This was the political atmosphere in which Bin Laden arrived in the country. Whatever the ISI's failings on the political level, there is little doubt that it is an extremely effective intelligence outfit. Its surveillance techniques are obviously not on the level of the NSA or GCHQ, but its network of well-trained agents do the business as some of their victims have testified. There is no way that Bin Laden could have slipped into the country unnoticed. He was provided with help at the highest levels in an operation that was regarded as top secret and his whereabouts were known only to three or four people, heads of the intelligence agencies.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...ef-hiding-osama-victory-13.html#ixzz2YoeQKnN2

Here lies the explanation to the turn of events that took place eventually leading to the Abbottabad Raid.
Let us not forget the immense contribution of the ISI and other elements of the Pakistani "Deep State" to the lexicon of contemporary English Language.

Viz:
"NON-STATE ACTORS"

The presence of Non-State Actors; who incidentally derived skill sets and sustenance from the State to start with is visible in many episodes in the recent past. OBL was pretty much the beneficiary of such people who had the means to use State Agencies to achieve their aims. The fact of the matter is that in Pakistan today, the lines between "State Actors" and "Non State Actors" have blurred to a great extent. And that has happened somewhat inevitably and even justifiably(?).
What else would you expect when People pledge allegiance to an even different authoriy than the State. If it was only in matters 'spiritual' that would be acceptable. But when it rules matters 'temporal'; then the impact is humongous.

 

[Saleem]

ISI helping that bearded bashi bazouk is a joke...pervez [mushy boy] is yellow to the core....ISI is directly udner Army control...pervez would not have had the guts to help anyone.....witness the way he wet his pants and yielded to all US demands witout a whimper even......all else is nonsense.....maybe some low level nut cases might have had ideas but not in any large way......

 

[Dash]

ISI was very much aware that OBL was in Pakistan. I can bet on this anyday. But what amazes me that how they let a nation down infront of the whole world, for xyz reasons. Pakistan and the entire world was taken aback by this operation and Pakistan became a laughing stock. This shouldnt happen to any nation.

 

[scholseys]

Once upon a time India had former ISI chief on the payroll.....interesting.....

 

[vsdave2302]

Hamid Gul was fighting on the front lines and defending Pakistan while you were probably still being breastfed.

He has more insight into any security related issues than any person on this board or in the media.

He is simply defending a man who was guilty of nothing considering he never even had his chance in court.

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

 

[SMC]

It is the U.S. President & the Defense secretary. Unlike Pakistan's President & Defence Minister, they actually have credibility when they speak on behalf of the U.S. government. It is only in Pakistan that you can get away suggesting that high officials are merely voicing their "private" opinions.

It sounds like you're going to continue to play dumb here and pretend you do not know the difference between official government statements and statements of individuals. You already acknowledged earlier that US will never officially accuse Pakistan, so it's obvious that you're switched your tone and are now playing dumb to not understand the difference.

Do you understand what constitutes a conspiracy theory? In 9/11 & 26/11, enough evidence has been presented to back the conclusions, conspiracy theory is to insist on inside job story without providing evidence & disregarding evidence already produced. In this case, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest Pakistan as a state didn't harbour OBL. There may be no direct evidence in support of it in the manner desired but that hardly qualifies as a conspiracy theory.

I damn well know what a conspiracy theory is, but it sounds like from what you're saying here, you do not know what constitutes a conspiracy theory. Or you're playing dumb yet again. Yes, there is no evidence to support Pakistan didn't harbour OBL. But, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, there is no evidence to support it did as well. My guess is you're playing dumb again, because you damn well know that the burden of proof is on the accuser. Until then, this is exactly what makes this such a fantastic conspiracy theory. This is the similar to how, for e.g., there is no evidence to support Bharat is supporting TTP, however there is no evidence to show it is not doing so either.

You still don't get it. If your own government ordered enquiry( I like how you insist they are "independent") is not ruling it out, there is no reason to assume that others cannot come to a stronger opinion on the matter.

I am actually saying that this "stronger opinion" is a conspiracy theory. Now a lot of people can come to such opinions, but they just have to be told that they're believing in a conspiracy theory. Anyone is free to believe in conspiracy theories. You're too, obviously, but what makes this so interesting is that you've been belittling people in the past for believing in conspiracy theories. Yet now your real side is so obvious to anyone, it would be hard for anyone to believe you're not a gross hypocrite.

You might not like the "speculation" as you call it bit no one is obliged to humour you. Just because you seem to operate on the principle @toxic_pus suggests is no reason to expect everyone else to do the same.

I am not sure why you're putting quotes around speculation. It is speculation no less, even you cannot doubt that. Worse, it is actually a conspiracy theory. You're so much against conspiracy theories, no?

I am operating on the principle of what we know in the open is what we believe. The "principle" you've referenced does not apply here because there is no official accusation from the US, let alone evidence provided against Pakistan. Now, if you or your fellow bharat (toxic_pus) are trying to show that one should be allowed to make accusations without evidence, or more importantly, make up your own accusations knowing that the US officially has not made any accusation (in which case, the principle you quoted would apply), then I expect you to be the last one to have a period when someone accuses bharat or US without evidence. I expect you to simply not post in those threads, and let people make accusations without evidence.

What happened to your expectation of grandeur evidence to convince you btw? It's so easy to convince you of something when it is anti-Pakistan, even if evidence is lacking. So do you selectively require evidence? I'd really like for you to comment on this part, because you've been avoided it thus far.

Note to self: if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and even looks like a duck, it must be a gorilla.

You mean to say that you do not require evidence in this particular case? But when someone does the same regarding 9/11 or Mumbai attacks, you'll have a period?

 

[SMC]

Pakistan's Osama bin Laden report is more cover-up than self-criticism

The tone may sound honest, but the notion that Bin Laden entered Pakistan in 2002 without the ISI's knowledge is risible

Tariq Ali



After the US helicopter assault on Osama bin Laden's quarters in Abbottabad and his assassination by navy Seals in 2011, a shaken Pakistani government set up a commission of inquiry, presided over by a retired judge, Javed Iqbal. Its findings, a part of which was leaked to al-Jazeera this week, reveal the country's intelligence agencies at loggerheads and in a general state of confusion.

The evidence of General Pasha, the former chief of the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, is particularly interesting, with its account of Bin Laden's travels in Pakistan following the war on Afghanistan, and explanation of how one of his aides used his Pakistani identity card to buy a plot of land not far from the Pakistan military academy. Many of these details are fascinating and the tone of the report may strike many as honest and self-critical. Yet it is worth clarifying that the overall thrust of the report is to exonerate the intelligence agencies by effectively accepting the official version that the ISI and the Federal Investigation Agency were unaware of Bin Laden's presence in the country.

The notion that Bin Laden, family and bodyguards left Afghanistan and entered Pakistan in 2002 without the knowledge and help of the ISI is risible. The report is weak on background. For example, it fails to explain that the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan was made possible only by heavy Pakistani involvement on every level: the operation was viewed by Pakistan's general headquarters as a total success, the first in its entire history. The control of Kabul and the southern part of the country supposedly provided Islamabad with "strategic depth".

The links between the ISI and the Taliban regime were intimate. There were differences on some issues but treated by the senior partner as little more than lovers' tiffs. After 9/11, the Pakistani military were instructed by Washington to facilitate the Nato occupation. General Musharraf, then president of Pakistan, asked for more time and was given two weeks. An American general warned that if Pakistan did not help it would be bombed to extinction. Musharraf caved in. This resulted in enormous tensions within the army, which was now being asked to reverse its only military triumph and help topple a government it had created. The high command held firm, but military dissidents organised three attempts on Musharraf's life and the ****** groups funded by the ISI went rogue.

This was the political atmosphere in which Bin Laden arrived in the country. Whatever the ISI's failings on the political level, there is little doubt that it is an extremely effective intelligence outfit. Its surveillance techniques are obviously not on the level of the NSA or GCHQ, but its network of well-trained agents do the business as some of their victims have testified. There is no way that Bin Laden could have slipped into the country unnoticed. He was provided with help at the highest levels in an operation that was regarded as top secret and his whereabouts were known only to three or four people, heads of the intelligence agencies.

I was informed of all this some years ago by a source in the intelligence services who had no idea where Bin Laden was but confirmed that he was in a safe house somewhere in the country. According to this source Pakistan, would hand him over if necessary, but the problem was that George W Bush only wanted his dead body and the Pakistanis were not prepared to kill "the golden goose". Obviously, nobody within the establishment (retired or not) is going to admit as much to a commission of inquiry, and Justice Iqbal could only pronounce on the basis of the evidence he was able to hear. The resulting report, as self-critical as it may sound, is therefore still a partial cover-up, as it had to be.

As far as the navy Seals are concerned, the question considered was whether the Pakistani military had any advance notification. The report suggests not and is extremely critical of the government for "dereliction of duty", concluding that "political, military intelligence and bureaucratic leadership cannot be absolved of their responsibility for the state of governance, policy planning and policy implementation that eventually rendered this national failure almost inevitable".

Perhaps. On the other hand, as General Pasha informed the inquiry, a US spy (whether CIA or DIA was not made clear) had told him contemptuously that "we can buy anyone in your country". Anyone? In which case why should one exclude the possibility that a bought person in the military helped with logistics? The details provided in this report offer a number of clues that need further exploration.

Pakistan's Osama bin Laden report is more cover-up than self-criticism | Tariq Ali | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

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.

 

[Bang Galore]

It sounds like you're going to continue to play dumb here and pretend you do not know the difference between official government statements and statements of individuals. You already acknowledged earlier that US will never officially accuse Pakistan, so it's obvious that you're switched your tone and are now playing dumb to not understand the difference.

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.....

I damn well know what a conspiracy theory is, but it sounds like from what you're saying here, you do not know what constitutes a conspiracy theory. Or you're playing dumb yet again. Yes, there is no evidence to support Pakistan didn't harbour OBL. But, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, there is no evidence to support it did as well. My guess is you're playing dumb again, because you damn well know that the burden of proof is on the accuser. Until then, this is exactly what makes this such a fantastic conspiracy theory. This is the similar to how, for e.g., there is no evidence to support Bharat is supporting TTP, however there is no evidence to show it is not doing so either.

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....

I am actually saying that this "stronger opinion" is a conspiracy theory. Now a lot of people can come to such opinions, but they just have to be told that they're believing in a conspiracy theory. Anyone is free to believe in conspiracy theories. You're too, obviously, but what makes this so interesting is that you've been belittling people in the past for believing in conspiracy theories. Yet now your real side is so obvious to anyone, it would be hard for anyone to believe you're not a gross hypocrite.

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.

I am not sure why you're putting quotes around speculation. It is speculation no less, even you cannot doubt that. Worse, it is actually a conspiracy theory. You're so much against conspiracy theories, no?

See above.

I am operating on the principle of what we know in the open is what we believe. The "principle" you've referenced does not apply here because there is no official accusation from the US, let alone evidence provided against Pakistan. Now, if you or your fellow bharat (toxic_pus) are trying to show that one should be allowed to make accusations without evidence, or more importantly, make up your own accusations knowing that the US officially has not made any accusation (in which case, the principle you quoted would apply), then I expect you to be the last one to have a period when someone accuses bharat or US without evidence. I expect you to simply not post in those threads, and let people make accusations without evidence.

What happened to your expectation of grandeur evidence to convince you btw? It's so easy to convince you of something when it is anti-Pakistan, even if evidence is lacking. So do you selectively require evidence? I'd really like for you to comment on this part, because you've been avoided it thus far.

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