The Murder of Osama Bin Laden. U S Pakistan Partners in Crime Seymour Hersh

[Bang Galore]

Sure, Peter Bergen: Whose sole validity and reason for fame is his once upon a time meeting with Bin Laden who Peter is cashing in to the last dime, while sitting in front of tv cameras appearing as an 'expert' on counter-terrorism.

I'd take Hersh anyday over Peter given Hersh's long established credentials.

But then, right now, Peter suits Indians and Hersh doesn't. Whatever.

No fan of Peter Bergen or anyone else. I merely quoted a comment (which was also used by the U.S. spokesperson) & the context should be read with the previous post of mine where an article critical of Seymour Hersh's reporting in this case was attached.

No one is questioning what Seymour Hersh has done in the past, the very fact that we are discussing this story is because he wrote it. Still neither infallible nor always correct.

 

[ashok321]

 

[Azad-Kashmiri]

View attachment 220646

It seems like the Administration is on the back foot for them to speak out on a ''baseless'' report.

But I still don't get it why Benazir Bhutto was saying on 'Frost Over the World' - on NOV, 2, 2007, OBL was killed by a Britsh Jihadi Omar Sheikh?

Youtube: 6 minutes, 12 seconds

 

[mingle]

Pak tried to stay away in order to avoid backlash what they feard that time .

 

[MastanKhan]

Sure, Peter Bergen: Whose sole validity and reason for fame is his once upon a time meeting with Bin Laden who Peter is cashing in to the last dime, while sitting in front of tv cameras appearing as an 'expert' on counter-terrorism.

I'd take Hersh anyday over Peter given Hersh's long established credentials.

But then, right now, Peter suits Indians and Hersh doesn't. Whatever.

Hi,

Thank you for the post---Peter Bergen---could not put it any better.

 

[SMC]

Hi,

Foxnews had another drama today---they called this navy seal who shot Osama----asked him him if there was cross firing---.

What do yu eople think he said---he just got a 20000 thousand dollars a month job----why is he going to contradict it00000just to get fired---and go broke---.




Hi,

And both the chinook had extra fuel bladders in them----the bladder had to be removed and the chopper then had to fly in---around 45 minutes or more time for troops to be on the ground.

A lots of lies being told---and specially that guy Pinetta---liar in chief.

You know what---Osama leverage had died its natural death and there is egg on the U S and Obama administration.

No fan of Peter Bergen or anyone else. I merely quoted a comment (which was also used by the U.S. spokesperson) & the context should be read with the previous post of mine where an article critical of Seymour Hersh's reporting in this case was attached.

No one is questioning what Seymour Hersh has done in the past, the very fact that we are discussing this story is because he wrote it. Still neither infallible nor always correct.

For now I am going with the official story, which is that Pakistan did not know about what the US had done until after it was done, and that Pakistan did not have any knowledge of OBL living in its territory.

However, there are a few key issues with Peter Bergen's rebuttal:

a) He argues that none of navy seals corroborate his version of the history. This should be obvious and not surprising, since the navy seals would have their jobs and safety on the lines if they were to say anything contradictory to the official story. It is even possible that the seals did not know all the details of the back-channel diplomacy.
b) He argues that US and Pakistani relations deteriorated after the raid, even though increased US support was part of the plan. This could be because Obama didn't fill his end of the bargain and announced the story earlier than anticipated and with changes to the script. This much is reported in Hersh's report
c) Bergen argues that "there was clear evidence of a firefight". However, I don't think Hersh has said anything contradictory to that..

All in all, I don't see much contradiction or anything unrealistic about the posited case.

There is perhaps a simpler alternative explanation. Consider how US has always officially denied any Pakistani state involvement in protecting OBL. IMO, Pakistan did not want to have anything to do with being involved in killing OBL because there could have been a lot of domestic backlash from the extremist quarters. The only way to do that was to paint Pakistan as incompetent and having no idea OBL was in Pakistan. So in the short term, Pakistan took a hit that would've otherwise resulted in a non-deterministic situation owing to the extremists. In other words, everything went as planned.

 

[gambit]

To the Americans here. Before you conclude on the guilt of Pakistan or otherwise I want you to go through the following. I know most of you Yanks are rather smart so I don't think I will have any problems unless PDF attracts certain type of Yank ....

Iraq was fire bombed into submission thereby putting into practice the "Peace through superior firepower" as supported in a avatar of a Yank here for allegedly supporting a nuclear programme and Afghanistan was bombed from the bronze age to the stone age for harbouring OBL

Given the above I ask everybody what would America do to a country that was hiding OBL contrary to US interests?

Surely in the eyes of US government this would be a crime worse than Iraq or Afghanistan because Pakistan was supposed to be US ally and enjoying significant grants as well as sales of advanced fighters like Block 52 F-16s? Would this duplicity not earn the wrath of a superpower

This needs thinking about. We the general public will never be privy to what really happened. To make a informed decision you would need access to all available information and we know no journalist anywhere is going to get acces to full classfied matariel. Maybe in 50 years or 100 years when old files are declassfied then we will know. All we can do for now is look at "effect" and then try to work backwards what the "cause" was.

What we do know is after OBL instead of bombing Pakistan to stone age - something that comes easy to a superpower or invading Pakistan like Iraq what did US administration do? Yes, they rewarded Pakistan with even more grants, even more weapons. What does that tell you? Instead of slapping us the Yanks are giving us sweets?

Now it is possible that US government has a habit of rewarding people who work against US interest and if people think that they need to question their own government. Also note that both the Bush and Obama administrations have followed the same policy toward Pakistan which can be summed as "sweets, more sweets".

Now compare our neighbours, another Muslim country. Iran. We have nuclear weapons. Iran does NOT. We have supposed to have hidden OBL. Iran did NOT hide OBL.

However which country can't piss crooked without US hurling threats? Iran

Which country is enjoying US largesse? Pakistan

Now conclude for yourselves ....

Iraq and Afghanistan were defeated after B41 (4yrs), Clinton (8yrs), and B43 (8yrs). So it was not as if we made no efforts at high/low diplomacy in both countries, covertly individually and openly in front of the UN, to resolve our conflicts. Maybe your Pakistan admitted that it is better to let others learned the hard way and quickly 'fessed up OBL.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

The thing is that there is no way possible that a chinook can fly into abbotabad after a supposed fire fight---take off and then fly and cross over to afghanistan---leaving on the ground a massive helicopter on fire---.

This is technically impossible---. Pakistan is a poor country---but it is no banana republic---.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Maybe. You can choose to make any conclusions in absence of facts. However we can try to agree on something that is at least plausible.

If as you assume that Pak "fessed up OBL" that would save Pakistan from being "bombed to the stone age" for coming clean however that would still leave one mighty "pissed off" super power. We would be lucky to walk away without a spanking. You agree with this?

However we walked with with "sweets" being stuffed in our pockets and continue four years down the road getting more "sweets" stuffed down our pockets. Hardly, I might suggest the actions of sole super power that has had allegedly it's eyes poked by Pakistan - A superpower that has more fire power on USS Nimitz then the entire Pak Airforce?

Unless your telling me US went all softy and preacher like. After having been slapped by Pakistan it extended it's other cheek in show of Christian foregiveness.

What say you?

 

[Thorough Pro]

now the BIG question, who was the MOTHERFUCKER sell out? We need to kill his entire family three generations up, all generations down for making Pakistan look like sponsor and protector of terrorists

 

[gambit]

Maybe. You can choose to make any conclusions in absence of facts. However we can try to agree on something that is at least plausible.

If as you assume that Pak "fessed up OBL" that would save Pakistan from being "bombed to the stone age" for coming clean however that would still leave one mighty "pissed off" super power. We would be lucky to walk away without a spanking. You agree with this?

I have no problems with that...

However we walked with with "sweets" being stuffed in our pockets and continue four years down the road getting more "sweets" stuffed down our pockets. Hardly, I might suggest the actions of sole super power that has had allegedly it's eyes poked by Pakistan - A superpower that has more fire power on USS Nimitz then the entire Pak Airforce?

Unless your telling me US went all softy and preacher like. After having been slapped by Pakistan it extended it's other cheek in show Christian foregiveness.

What say you?

I say you incorrectly assumed that we have the same response for every country, that there is somehow a Presidential notebook that the President and his top diplomats can check off boxes with corresponding issues and resolutions.

We know that your Pakistan have a divided government. Some are sympathetic to the religion led policies of the Islamists. Some are more politically in tune with US. But you should not conclude that just because we give Pakistan more than carrots for 'fessing up OBL that does not mean we will not pull out the sticks. Right now, your political leadership is wondering what kind of President the US will have. Even if the American public is gullible enough to elect another Democrat, this one is not going play nice like the current one. But if the American public elect a Republican, those sticks are not going to stay behind our backs but on the table for all to see.

 

[Azad-Kashmiri]

now the BIG question, who was the MOTHERFUCKER sell out? We need to kill his entire family three generations up, all generations down for making Pakistan look like sponsor and protector of terrorists

The ISI officer who did not turn up for work the next day!

 

[Thorough Pro]

don't be a jerk, I know that, but why is his name not made public?

The ISI officer who did not turn up for work the next day!

 

[Azad-Kashmiri]

don't be a jerk, I know that, but why is his name not made public?

That's anyones guess. Maybe there isn't a ''rogue'' agent! Maybe the General and his Pal started preparing for their retirement.

Whenever Pakistan is concerned, nothing is straight forward. We got Benazir Bhutto saying OBL was dead; Al-Jazeera, on 2 Nov, 07. Can someone even explain that?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

I have no problems with that...


I say you incorrectly assumed that we have the same response for every country, that there is somehow a Presidential notebook that the President and his top diplomats can check off boxes with corresponding issues and resolutions.

I did not assume any such notebook. However I did assume the office of President is a executive post. Executive by definition implies a office that requires finely crafted decisions based on complex variables informed by reasoned logic but tempered with wisdom. To cut it short you expect some common sense in what decisions are made unless you end up electing a nutter on the lines of Muamar Gaddafi. In which case god help you. Can we however safely assume that the collective genius of the US electorate prevents a nutter being elected to the White House?

We know that your Pakistan have a divided government. Some are sympathetic to the religion led policies of the Islamists. Some are more politically in tune with US. But you should not conclude that just because we give Pakistan more than carrots for 'fessing up OBL that does not mean we will not pull out the sticks. Right now, your political leadership is wondering what kind of President the US will have

.

All governments have within them conflicting impulses unless you have a Soviet style dictatorship on the lines that Stalin ran. Yes, indeed we have had officials in the middle tier who because of their involvement in Operation Cyclone became too cosy with the groups that they and CIA worked with namely the Mujahideen groups which were the prototype for later Jihadis as the etymology of Muja-Jihid - een exposes.

Even if the American public is gullible enough to elect another Democrat, this one is not going play nice like the current one. But if the American public elect a Republican, those sticks are not going to stay behind our backs but on the table for all to see.

You have had Republican and Democratic governments which have both followed the same policy toward Pakistan with one small exception the Republican's tend to be more softer on Pakistan and are more liberal with the 'sweets'.

Please refer to President Bush and his generousity toward Pakistan. Obama has been harsh on us in comparison. Pak prefers Republican administrations. The worse one we experianced was Clinton and the best was Reagan.

In conclusion the thrust of your argument still suggest that Pakistan is complicit. The fact is your government in all it's majestic power has continued to reward Pakistan post OBL. At no stage has your government in act or suggestion said Pakistan was guilty in regards to OBL.

Given this, all available evidence points to Pakistan not being guilty. How so then and on what basis do you still clutch for some reason to adjudge Pakistan complicit? Is it case of gut feeling or partiality informing your disposition toward Pakistan? In which case we are damned eithier way.

Seems to me irrational and illogical as much as the religious right in Pakistan who come up with ridicalous conspiracy theories based on nothing but what they want to believe. Similar to saying there is no proof of something but I know it is there !

*Operation Cyclone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*The CIA's "Operation Cyclone" - Stirring The Hornet's Nest Of Islamic Unrest

and it is not just ISI in Pakistan that may have operative who go over and start renegade missions.

*Dublin-Monaghan bombs: victims sue British government - BBC News