Osama Dead. Obama Confirms.

[Mujeeb47]

@ Impact
Killing of Osama is bad? Whats bad for Pakistan.
@ Hembo
Times of India isn't a good source.
Osama was a Muslim and Prayer is not a bad idea.

 

[Ammyy]

US has collected 14 hard discs and some 100 storage devices fron the site....there could be more shakening coming ..

I wish they publish all this data so every one know reality about "we dnt know about Osama" reality

 

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

pakistanis think their army is the ultimate saviour of pakistan and holds a "magical switch" to all problems of pakistan. the only problem with such kind of system is that no one has authority to question army. it is accountable to no one.

and wat is the saying regarding absloute power................ it corrupts absolutely.

 

[Break the Silence]

Why They Killed Osama bin Laden Now


You might remember a Shekhar Suman gag on Zee TV's Movers and Shakers several years ago: An angry George W Bush announces that the United States will bomb the place where Osama bin Laden is found to be hiding.

Hearing this, Vajpayee looks under his bed, pauses, and with a characteristic flick of his wrist says: "Thank God! He isn't here!"

Over in Rawalpindi, General Musharraf looks under his bed, sighs in relief, and says: "Thank God! He is still here!"

Shekhar Suman, more than most Western analysts, got the plot right. Keeping Osama bin Laden out of Washington's hands was vital in order to prevent having to publicly deal with revelations of how the Pakistani military-jihadi complex not only was connected with al-Qaeda, but might also have been involved in the conspiracy behind the 9/11 attacks.

Moreover, when the Pakistani military leadership was getting paid hundreds of millions of dollars per year to hunt bin Laden down, it made little sense to give him up quickly. As early as October 2001, a month after 9/11, wags in Islamabad coined the phrase "al-Faida" (the profit) in anticipation of the rewards Pakistan would reap for joining the war on terror that it had played a part in creating. Pakistan was in an international doghouse at that time. Its economy was crumbling under the weight of sections imposed by the international community for having carried out nuclear tests in 1998. Its government, then under General Musharraf's military dictatorship, was seen as odious, not least for supporting the original Taliban regime in Kabul. It was barely surviving on Saudi largesse until September 2001, when General Musharraf's ditching of one set of allies for another changed his country's fortunes -- from being nearly toast, Pakistan was the toast.

Just how much was the al-Faida worth? According to data compiled by K Alan Kronstadt, of the US Congressional Research Service, between 2002 and 2010, US direct overt aid and military reimbursements to Pakistan amounted to $19.6 billion, of which $13.3 billion was for security-related heads. Obviously, if there is "direct, overt" aid, there is likely to be "indirect, covert" aid. There is also the money from other countries and loans from the IMF. Because the military-jihadi complex dominates the Pakistani political economy, it is the primary beneficiary of this largesse. Between 2002 and 2008, my estimate suggests that the business of shipping US and NATO containers from Karachi to Kabul alone made $500m per year for the military establishment and $300m per year for the militant groups. Why would they want the gravy train to stop?

They wouldn't, but the Obama administration had other ideas. It made three changes that caused the Pakistani military establishment to redo its sums. First, the Kerry-Lugar-Berman legislation made it harder for the military to capture the funds. It also came with more strings attached. Second, the Obama administration increased the number of drone strikes against targets in Pakistan, while increasing pressure on the Pakistani army to go after the taliban groups in its tribal areas. Finally, by indicating a timeline for withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, Washington triggered the endgame.

With the Obama adminstration taking a harder line on the Pakistani army, the al-Faida from the war against al-Qaeda began to be less attractive. At the same time, with a US withdrawal in sight, Afghanistan began to look more attractive as a prize. For General Kayani to stand a chance for claiming this prize, it is necessary for President Obama to prevail over other members of his administration and get US troops out earlier.

Playing the bin Laden card is a brilliant way to achieve this outcome. Although US officials claim they did it without Pakistan's knowledge or permission, it is hard to believe he could be found without the Pakistani military establishment permitting it.

Either way, bin Laden's elimination provides the right political cover for President Obama to declare victory and order his troops out of Afghanistan. Once withdrawal starts, President Obama will be politically dependent on General Kayani to ensure that it takes place in a manner that doesn't damage his re-election prospects. Expect the latter to use the leverage to ensure that the military-jihadi complex gets its proxies into the government in Kabul.

As I wrote on my blog yesterday, "the United States is unlikely to punish Pakistan for the decade of duplicity, subterfuge and violence that consumed innumerable lives and astounding amounts of money." President Obama will not ask why Osama bin Laden was living it up in Abbottabad, a bus stop away from the Pakistan Military Academy, and not in a cave somewhere in Waziristan. You won't find Washington too interested in confronting General Kayani on when bin Laden moved in there and why his presence went undetected for so long.

Rather, Washington will seek plausible reassurances that after it leaves, Afghanistan will not play host to terrorists targeting the United States. It will place some anti-Taliban and anti-Pakistan Afghans into positions of power in Kabul to balance Pakistan's proxies. It might retain some troops and drones in Afghanistan just in case it needs to use a stick. That apart, it will accede to Pakistani demands that Kabul be made over to a pro-Pakistani regime.

In time, the Pakistani military-jihadi complex will seek to reconquer Afghanistan (called "gaining strategic depth") with China's support or connivance.

We are staring at a return of the 1990s. This is a bad outcome for Afghans, Pakistanis and Indians. The military-jihadi complex will gain in strength. Pakistan's civilian government will be more powerless. It will only be a facade with which to seek foreign assistance. It will also be the whipping boy, blamed for the worsening state of Pakistan. Hundreds of thousands of triumphant militants will need to be given new targets. Compared to the early 1990s, it is far more difficult today---strategically and operationally---to push them across into India. Yet, the interests of the military-jihadi complex and the absence of a miracle job-machine will pose a serious threat to India's national security. We may be, at best, two summers away from an escalation of the proxy war in Kashmir and elsewhere.

Nitin Pai is founder & fellow for geopolitics at the Takshashila Institution and editor of Pragati - The Indian National Interest Review, a publication on strategic affairs, public policy and governance. He blogs at The Acorn and is active on Twitter too.

 

[President Camacho]

Hasty burial at sea for no good reason?

I say he is alive, if he was at the compound. The US is interrogating him and will eventually kill him and release the pictures.

They didn't want to announce the capture since that would have possibly spiked terrorist attacks against Western targets to bargain for his release and/or act in his name.

The US will eventually kill him, because it would be very hard to conceal a prisoner of his status for any long period of time. Get whatever information they can out of him, and then shoot him as described in the press releases and dump his body into the sea from some AC Carrier.

Why is everyone so hostile to this^^ scenario? In fact this is exactly what I too have been thinking as one of the most plausible reasons why no pictures of a deceased Osama have been issued.

Not only the US, but every other country/agency has been working the same way to extract all the information while publicly announcing that the person in question died at the time of attack.

There is only one point every person is proffering to counter this scenario - The testimony of bin Laden's young daughter who claims to have seen her father being shot (but dead too?). The fact of the matter is, the daughter is in the custody of the ISI, and has not been produced before the media even once. All such information about her testimonies are coming from 'unnamed' sources. We all know how reliable are such 'unnamed' sources. And if the operation was very well conducted with the full knowledge of the ISI, which is very much possible, then the girl's testimony will be what the US wants it to be.

Now consider this: The US, and every country/agency knows that Osama's power is in his name. Whether he is in command or not, the widespread belief among his followers that he is alive is the main strength of Al Qaeda. What will the US gain by 'not producing' the proof of Osama's death? Any such proof will considerably demotivate the Al Qaeda members, and all the US has to do, is publish a picture! But it is not doing that, and there is a reason for it.

In conclusion, we cannot confidently say that Osama is really alive, but this angle cannot be dismissed so easily either.

 

[President Camacho]

Absolutely right.
What is the gain in 'protecting' OBL? Nothing. It would be all loss. Now, one can argue that Pakistan does have some stakes in factions of Talibans, especially the Haqqani faction, to exercise counter-India influence there. But that is different. You can certainly accuse ISI of incompetence and debate that.
Now, to our Non-Pakistani guests:
If you are here to bash Pakistan then you will only inflame passions and achieve nothing. Pushed to a corner unjustifiably even the most liberal Pakistanis are going to push back. If bashing is the goal then please go to Bharat Rakshak or Yahoo etc.
But if you are here to understand Pakistan and the war and want peace in this world then hear us loud and clear: OBL was most UNwelcome even in the best of times (1996-2001) when Pakistani allies ruled Afghanistan. His presence was nothing but a source of anarchy, bloodshed and shame. Pakistan would gain nothing by 'harboring' him. Do some critical thinking.

Very aptly said! And I too wish the Indians show a little more patience and maturity while posting on this site. This goes especially to those who have been saying that India can also conduct such an operation - complete stupidity !!!

But there is one flaw in your post, Meengla: OBL was not UNwelcomed at all! His connections in the ISI, and many civilian organizations go very deep. In fact he was very welcomed. Just as has been Mullah Omar. It has been said so many times, and circumstantially proven too, that he has often been in Quetta. So please do not say that OBL was most UNwelcomed person. If that were the case, either the ISI would have eliminated him already, or he would not even have dared stepped into such UNwelcoming territory of Pakistan.

 

[Mujeeb47]

@ Meengla
Indians have right to say what they want to say.

 

[Che Guevara]

Watch this out awesome video

 

[Devil Soul]

Internal rift led to Osama killing: Saudi paper

Updated at 15:37 PST Thursday, May 05, 2011



RIYADH: US troops were led to Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden by his own deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, because of a simmering internal power struggle, a Saudi newspaper reported on Thursday.

Al-Watan newspaper, quoting an unnamed "regional source," said the top two Al-Qaeda men had differences and that a courier who led US forces to bin Laden was working for Zawahiri.

The courier was a Pakistan national and not a Kuwaiti as the US suspected, Al-Watan said. The man knew he was being followed by the US military but disguised the fact.

"The Egyptian faction of Al-Qaeda is defacto running the organisation now and since he was taken ill in 2004 they have been trying to take full control,"
according to the paper.

It said Zawahiri's faction had persuaded bin Laden to leave tribal areas along the Afghan-Pakistan border and take shelter instead in Abbottabad near Islamabad where he was finally killed by US commandos on Monday.

With the return of an Egyptian figure in Al-Qaeda, Saif al-Adel, last autumn from Iran, the Egyptian faction had hatched a plan to dispose of Saudi-born bin Laden, according to Al-Watan. (AFP)

 

[hembo]

That sweet piece of stealth shall be sent to china for some reverse engineering and material analysis.

That's a thought for sure!!! What were those yanks thinking???

 

[Bang Galore]

The Great Pakistan Rethink

Zalmay Khalilzad

Zalmay Khalilzad is a counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. From 2007 to 2009, he served as U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations. He has also previously served as U.S. ambassador to Iraq, as well as U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan and also as special presidential envoy to Afghanistan.

The killing of Osama bin Laden was an important success, but it raises vital strategic questions about Pakistan and our policy towards it.

The fact that bin Laden lived in a luxury compound one thousand yards from Pakistan’s national military academy and thirty miles from the capital city of Islamabad raises disturbing questions about the possible nexus between Pakistan’s security apparatus, al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists.

After 9/11, President Bush declared that Pakistan must choose sides in the war on terrorism—either with us or against us. The administration delivered non-negotiable demands calling on Pakistan to cease its support for the Taliban regime and cooperate with the U.S.-led mission in Afghanistan. Pakistani president Musharraf initially acquiesced.

After the fall of the Taliban regime, however, the Bush administration prodded Pakistan for further cooperation through positive inducements and occasional pressure. It lifted sanctions that had been imposed on Pakistan for its nuclear program, eased pressure on the regime to democratize, and provided more than $11 billion in aid. Over 70 percent of American aid to Pakistan during the Bush years was security-related, focused on improving Pakistan’s counterterrorism capabilities. It also pressured Pakistan to move against extremists—particularly al-Qaeda.

Pakistan reciprocated with haphazard cooperation. It helped with transit routes and logistics in Afghanistan, though always in exchange for money. Its intelligence agency—the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI)—cooperated at times in capturing al-Qaeda operatives such as 9/11’s mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, and moved against anti-Pakistan Taliban at significant cost. But Pakistan's security institutions also worked against us by providing sanctuary and active support for the Taliban, Haqqani network, and other insurgent groups with different degrees of linkage to al-Qaeda.

The Obama administration basically retained the strategy of its predecessor, though it increased pressure on Pakistan in two important ways. First, it accelerated drone attacks and other activities against al-Qaeda and various extremists inside Pakistan’s borders. Second, it increased U.S. assistance to Pakistan and adjusted its aid by increasing funding for economic and development initiatives.

As in the case of the Bush administration, the Obama administration’s approach has not been decisive enough to produce a fundamental change in Pakistani policy. Islamabad wants to keep the pipeline of American assistance flowing while limiting U.S. anti-terror operations in Pakistan, particularly the drone attacks. It is also escalating pressure on U.S. forces in Afghanistan by, among other things, allowing factories to operate in places like Chaman that are producing improvised explosive devices designed to maim the legs and genital areas of soldiers. Its overall design seeks to turn its neighbor into a Pakistani satrapy.

Now, there may be an opportunity to bring about a change in Pakistani policy with respect to cooperating more fully with the United States. The raid against bin Laden’s compound has put Pakistan on the defensive. With evidence likely to emerge that the Pakistani military may have shielded bin Laden, Pakistani leaders may be more susceptible to American pressure than they have been at any time since immediately after 9/11.

We should therefore adopt a three-step strategy:

First, we should discuss the evidence and related issues with Pakistani leaders through official channels and demand the elimination of the remaining al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan—either by arresting them and turning them over to the United States or by sharing information with Washington and allowing U.S. Special Forces (which have acquired amazing capabilities to move against specific targets) to operate against these terrorists. We should also push for the elimination of IED factories and signal that we would take direct measures ourselves if Pakistan does not act. As for the Afghan insurgents, Pakistan provides them with sanctuary and has enormous influence over the Taliban and the Haqqani network. We need to get Pakistan to cooperate with us and with Afghanistan to stop support for the Haqqani network, an al-Qaeda ally, and to embrace a constructive approach to an agreement ending the Afghan dispute and an agreement with the Taliban.

An agreement along these lines would be the best outcome, though it would have to be structured to ensure timely Pakistani action to fulfill its obligations. Pending agreement on these points, the administration should consider looking closely at security-related assistance. Coalition support funds—which reimburse the Pakistani military for counterterrorism operations and constitute a significant subsidy for its operating budget—should be adjusted. Payments should be linked to performance and achievement of established milestones.

It is possible that Pakistan might cooperate with this approach. Given Pakistan's importance for our efforts in Afghanistan, the security of its nuclear weapons and threat of extremism, what do we do if Islamabad remains obstinate? In such a situation the Obama administration would to well to consider a calibrated increase in pressure on Pakistan. We could expose information that we already have and are likely to obtain on Pakistan’s conduct in relations to terrorists, including Bin Laden and others. This rollout could be accompanied by demands for an international investigation into the relationship between the Pakistani regime and the entire range of militant groups that it harbors and supports—al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Haqqani network and other extremist and terrorist groups. Also, the Obama administration might expand its policy of unilateral air or Special Forces strikes to cover the leadership and sanctuaries of insurgents operating against us in Afghanistan.

The United States has myriad points of leverage that we should keep in reserve. These include blocking IMF funding that is crucial for Pakistan’s economic stability. The administration can designate Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism and raise the issue in front of the Security Council and other international forums. And it can also bolster ties with Pakistan’s chief rival, India. All of these steps are risky and should be exercised only in the most extreme of circumstances.

Given Pakistan's importance, the United States needs to continue, adjust and expand efforts to win over the Pakistani people. One area of expanded effort should be the empowerment of Pakistan’s civil society through a combination of aid, public diplomacy, and programs aimed at strengthening democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Economically, it should pay greater attention to the country’s rampant corruption, high unemployment rate among young people, and dearth of investment in infrastructure and education.

Pakistan is important. The United States does not need Pakistan as an enemy. Pakistani leaders should fear hostile relations with Washington. Pakistan has acted both as our friend and as our adversary. In the current crisis of confidence, there may be an opportunity—if Islamabad makes a fundamental break from extremism and terrorism. Such a change would be the most consequential effect of the raid on bin Laden compound.

Commentary: The Great Pakistan Rethink | The National Interest

 

[F86 Saber]

What the western media and Pakistani's living abroad don't know and our media is choosing to ignore, is the state of internal affairs in Pakistan. It is not the job of Pakistan Army to register all immigrants moving into Pakistan. It is not the job of Pakistan Army to check legality and illegality of people living in Pakistan. It is not the job of Pakistan army to investigate whether land being bough or rented is done legally, who are the people buying or renting it and what is the source of income they are using to buy or rent. I can safely say that if i was living in that neighborhood in Abbotabad i would never have bothered to worry about who is living in that particular house, what type of people are coming and going and what their source of income is. These things just remain topics of gossip between the housewives and men generally don't pay attention to them. I assure you that neither anyone reports who they rented or sold their house to, nor anyone comes to investigate and even if someone does, there are ways to handle them (bribe). Bottom line is, it is not a part of Army's JD. I am not at all surprised Osama was living in Abbotabad and i do not blame the army for it, with the Afghan border left wide open and unattended with no checks on people coming and going, Osama could have lived in Defense Lahore and no one would have found out.
We are playing right into the hands of the agenda US is using through the media, to degrade Pakistan Army, to prove that our nuclear assets are "unsafe", to prove that we like the people of Lybia, Iraq and the gulf countries need the help of the "Messiah" to come and protect us. If someone needs to answer it is the NATO army for allowing these militants to cross over from Afghanistan into Pakistan, what are they doing there anyway?

 

[hembo]

I thought my statement was blunt- inviting India to dare an attack-

Fair enough. And let me tell you that India does not have the capability to do so. Hope that massages your ego adequately.

But on my question (which you evaded), What's you position on Pakistan not taking action against the likes of Dawood and Hafiz Saeed etc?

 

[sur]

NDP deputy leader doubts U.S. has photos of bin Laden’s body


Vancouver Sun
May 5, 2011

The NDP war room went into panic response mode Wednesday after party deputy leader Thomas Mulcair said on a CBC news program that he doubted the U.S. military had pictures of Osama bin Laden’s body.

During an appearance on CBC’s Power and Politics, Mulcair said he doesn’t believe U.S. authorities have photographs of bin Laden’s dead body after he was shot in the head by American forces in Pakistan this weekend.

“I don’t think, from what I’ve heard, that those pictures exist. And if they do, I’ll leave that up to the American military,” Mulcair told the CBC.

When asked again to confirm whether he believed the photos existed, Mulcair said: “No, I don’t think they do.”

His contentious comments sparked anger from other parties who voiced their concerns, quickly making the popular Montreal MP a trending topic in the Twitterverse.


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

 

[Hafizzz]

Is Osama Bin Laden Really Dead, Could This Be Fake?
Is Osama Bin Laden Really Dead, Could This Be Fake? | Excerptz

In the last few hours reports have emerged that Osama Bin Laden is dead, Barrack Obama has confirmed as such, and jubilant celebrations are taking place throughout America. The one question that I am asking, and perhaps many others are asking, is where is the proof? Where is the proof that Osama Bin Laden is dead? Why don’t we have a picture? Why has he been buried at sea so quickly without DNA testing to ensure that they have the right man?

Osama Bin Laden has plenty of professional lookalikes, employed to act as a decoy in the hunt for Bin Laden (if that hunt ever existed), how can they be certain that the man killed (if any man has been killed) is Bin Laden, without laboratory tests confirming his identity? I guess that the death wouldn’t be faked, as Osama Bin Laden could simply make a new video ridiculing the claims, unless….. unless Bin Laden struck a deal?

I find it most unusual that he was found just outside of Islamabad, the capital city of Pakistan. You wouldn’t image a criminal hiding in New York, or London, or Paris, or Bangkok, would you? Whilst it has only been a few hours, something just doesn’t add up for me. If somebody tells you that they have five million dollars, do you believe them? Or do you wait until you have seen their Rolex watch and Ferrari?

With so many conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 and the relationship between the American government and the Bin Laden family, it surely can’t be long until the conspiracy theories emerge which seek to prove that Bin Laden hasn’t died. Will America regret throwing Bin Laden into the sea at that point? Or have they retained the proof? Or have they actually retained the dead body?

I’m not going to be the person that presents a conspiracy theory, but I will certainly be watching news reports with great interest, to see how it is that the American administration intend to prove his death. You also have to ask how long Pakistan have known his whereabouts. Does the £450m ($720m) recently pledged in aid by the British administration play a role in this?

Have Obama and Cameron effectively bought intelligence in order to paint a picture of an Anglo-American partnership which succeeded where Bush and Blair failed? Perhaps driven by their buddy Rupert Murdoch? Lot’s to think about sheeple.

USA refuse to release the photos of Bin Laden's body.