US duplicity and lies

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I have articulated some of these thoughts elsewhere, but this gentleman presents them in a much more concise manner with the actual quotes, so here it is, with some of the other 'duplicity' on the part of the US.

On Saturday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told ABC's "This Week" he has no good intelligence on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden.

"We don't know for a fact where Osama bin Laden is," he said. "If we did, we'd go and get him."

Asked how long it has been since the U.S. had any good intel on his location, Gates replied, "I think it's been years."

On Sunday, meanwhile, National Security Adviser James Jones said on CNN's "State of the Union" show that bin Laden still spends time in Afghanistan. He added most recent estimates have placed him inside Pakistan. He also said his best estimate is that the al-Qaida leaders "is somewhere in Wazirstan – sometimes on the Pakistan side of the border, sometimes on the Afghan side of the border."

Which one of them, if either, is right?

Do we have recent intelligence or not?

Do these compare notes?

Do they even listen to what the other says on national television?

This is the national security adviser and the defense secretary – both telling different stories.
Chaos in Afghanistan policy

And ofcourse lets not forget the US SoS Clinton and Gordon Brown's comments on OBL:

Clinton: "I Find it Hard to Believe that Nobody in Your Government Knows Where (Al Qaeda) Really Are and Couldn't Get Them if They Really Wanted To"

AM Comment: Madam secretary, I find it hard to believe no one in your administration can get their stories straight, and that you apparently had an epiphany (ala George Bush's conversations with the Almighty) that the Pakistanis know what is going on.


And then there was Anne Patterson:

“Our intelligence on Quetta is vastly less. We have no people there, no cross-border operations, no Predators.”

And despite that self admitted lack of information and intelligence, she goes on to 'boldly go where no uninformed hack has gone before' (or more than likely has, since that is what uninformed hacks do):

“the United States has now turned its focus to Quetta” from where “Mullah Omar and his commanders plan and launch cross-border strikes into Afghanistan”.

uh huh ... apparently she can make the above statement because she had the same epiphany that HC did in the absence of intelligence and information on these issues.

Folks - all of the above points to a concerted campaign of duplicity and lies by the US, in cahoots with its poodle Britain (reference to Gordon Brown) to malign Pakistan and pressure it to do god knows what since the US officials themselves admit they have no clue in terms of intelligence.

Someone was talking about US credibility?

 

[xdrive]

How has the united states lied? they never once said in the last 4 years "We know where osama is" They knew where he was and was very very close to capturign him but he escaped.


What a stupid thread.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

How has the united states lied? they never once said in the last 4 years "We know where osama is" They knew where he was and was very very close to capturign him but he escaped.


What a stupid thread.

They have implied or directly said repeatedly that he is in Pakistan, the most blatant example of which was Hillary's comments which were posted and which you could have researched further.

Now we find out that they haven't had intel on him for years - that counts as lying in my book. Perhaps you should read the first post more carefully.

Just because you don't like what it says and it exposes US lies does not make it 'stupid'.

 

[xdrive]

The only thing i have seen them say is "We think he is in pakistan" not "He is in pakistan" IF they knew where he was, they would go get him. lol.

Just because you don't like what it says and it exposes US lies does not make it 'stupid'.

But the US hasn't lied, and you act like they have said "We know where he is" this is why your thread is stupid.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The only thing i have seen them say is "We think he is in pakistan" not "He is in pakistan" IF they knew where he was, they would go get him. lol.

Just because you don't like what it says and it exposes US lies does not make it 'stupid'.

But the US hasn't lied, and you act like they have said "We know where he is" this is why your thread is stupid.

"Referring to Pakistan's rugged tribal area, McConnell said "to the best of our knowledge that the senior leadership, No. 1 and No. 2, are there, and they are attempting to re-establish and rebuild and to establish training camps."
CIA: Bin Laden in Pakistan Establishing New Camps - The Blotter

"Feierstein was of the view that Osama bin Laden is operating from the tribal areas of Pakistan and maintains that the control centre of the Afghan Taliban is based in Quetta."
DAWN.COM | Pakistan | 'Osama bin Laden operating from Pakistan'

And ofcourse Clinton's comments that I have already posted but you chose to ignore:

Clinton: "I Find it Hard to Believe that Nobody in Your Government Knows Where (Al Qaeda) Really Are and Couldn't Get Them if They Really Wanted To"

Then there are the incessant articles and analysis in the US media quoting US intelligence and administration officials swearing that OBL is in Pakistan.

These lies and this duplicity deserve to be exposed, and again, just because you don't like the truth and the fact that the US has been exposed does not make the thread 'stupid'.

 

[xdrive]

Don't give me this "Just because you don't like the truth" That's not the reason why im arguing this with you. Your taking what was said and are taking it out of context.

Your just another united states basher.

 

[Comet]

^It's not about bashing or not-bashing. Its about facts. They have conflicting statements.

 

[Developereo]

Your taking what was said and are taking it out of context.

One guy says, "We don't know where OBL is, and have'nt known for years."

The other says, "We are quite certain he is in Afghanistan, no wait, in Pakistan."

These are both extremely high ranking officials in the US government and knowing OBL's whereabouts is part of their job description. The US government is either clueless or duplicitous, which would be funny, if it weren't for the fact that thousands of Pakistanis have died for the US government's incompetence.

 

[S-2]

"Folks - all of the above points to a concerted campaign of duplicity and lies by the US, in cahoots with its poodle Britain (reference to Gordon Brown) to malign Pakistan and pressure it to do god knows what..."

You and I both know that Haqqani is in Miran Shah or its immediate environs. THAT, alone, is adequate for my purposes, as it was through that POS' network that the Indian embassy in Kabul was bombed.

Further, you've constructed a strawman argument that fails to explain why your own CITIZENS like Nazir and Bahadur lead their tribal brothers and more of your own CITIZENS in an openly declared war against NATO/ISAF/GoA and have done so for years.

Do you plead ignorance of this reality involving Nazir and Bahadur?

The issue is SANCTUARY that facilitates an externally-directed insurgency-not a game of "hide-and-seek".

"Then there are the incessant articles and analysis in the US media quoting US intelligence and administration officials swearing that OBL is in Pakistan."

Your own DAILY TIMES says-

"The Haqqani shura based in North Waziristan is widely believed to be openly working with al Qaeda."

Says enough right there when coupled with David Rohde's report. There are bad men who've comfortably lived for years on your lands and made war on Afghanistan by doing so.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

The issue is SANCTUARY that facilitates an externally-directed insurgency-not a game of "hide-and-seek".

Bravol
So Pakistan Lawnlessness areas are sanctuary and the whole 70% Afghanistan under Taliban is an amusement Park ...

 

[S-2]

"So Pakistan Lawnlessness areas are sanctuary and the whole 70% Afghanistan under Taliban..."

Please explain "70% under Taliban". I think that you actually read poorly and understand worse.

From ICOS-

Afghanistan Jan-August 2009

Now the number isn't actually 70%. It's 80%. Worse...until you read the fine print which indicates that we're talking about 80% of Afghanistan with a permanent taliban presence-not control. Please read-

"Data detailing the presence of the Taliban in Afghanistan was gathered from daily insurgent activity reports between January and September 2009. ICOS believes that the level of incidents recorded by this methodology is conservative, as it is based on public third-party reports, and not all incidents are made public.

Permanent presence: defined by provinces that average one (or more) insurgent attack (lethal and non-lethal) per week.

Substantial presence: an average one or more insurgent attacks per month and include residents who believe Taliban are active locally (based on frequency of Taliban sightings).

Light presence: defined by less than one insurgent attack per month and local residents don't believe Taliban is active locally (based on frequency of Taliban sightings). To calculate percentages, the total area of Afghanistan was divided by the total area hosting a permanent/ substantial/light Taliban presence."

One or more insurgent attack per week. If that's the case, Peshawar would likely qualify. There are many here who can't read well and have long misinterpreted this data.

Are you one of them? It would seem so.

Anywhere that ISAF stands, the taliban melt away. They control nothing. There's nothing that can't be taken from the taliban and there's nothing that the taliban have yet taken and held.

 

[Ahmad]

"So Pakistan Lawnlessness areas are sanctuary and the whole 70% Afghanistan under Taliban..."

Please explain "70% under Taliban". I think that you actually read poorly and understand worse.

From ICOS-

Afghanistan Jan-August 2009

Now the number isn't actually 70%. It's 80%. Worse...until you read the fine print which indicates that we're talking about 80% of Afghanistan with a permanent taliban presence-not control. Please read-

"Data detailing the presence of the Taliban in Afghanistan was gathered from daily insurgent activity reports between January and September 2009. ICOS believes that the level of incidents recorded by this methodology is conservative, as it is based on public third-party reports, and not all incidents are made public.

Permanent presence: defined by provinces that average one (or more) insurgent attack (lethal and non-lethal) per week.

Substantial presence: an average one or more insurgent attacks per month and include residents who believe Taliban are active locally (based on frequency of Taliban sightings).

Light presence: defined by less than one insurgent attack per month and local residents don't believe Taliban is active locally (based on frequency of Taliban sightings). To calculate percentages, the total area of Afghanistan was divided by the total area hosting a permanent/ substantial/light Taliban presence."

One or more insurgent attack per week. If that's the case, Peshawar would likely qualify. There are many here who can't read well and have long misinterpreted this data.

Are you one of them? It would seem so.

Anywhere that ISAF stands, the taliban melt away. They control nothing. There's nothing that can't be taken from the taliban and there's nothing that the taliban have yet taken and held.

in west of afghanistan(herat) the taliban now dont even have that low level presence as they had it before, their commander got killed and many of them surrendred.

 

[bigmoneymaker]

yo, i think other non english language websites have already exposed usa ugly face by disclosing credible facts....most of the english speakers and forums they joined have been much infiltrated by usa influence of perspectives and thoughts so no wonder there are still people superstitiously believe in usa myth and viewpoints....learning another language just provide another effective channel for info decoded in much different ways, some info reflected the attitude of the decoders towards the affairs in the context of their relevant culture......

 

[All-Green]

Things are bad in Afghanistan and the initiative is not resting with ISAF.
The momentum gained by Taliban has forced ISAF on the backfoot.

As General McChrystal penned quite accurately in his report...

“Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible,”

This is not a sales pitch to get new gadgets for his men, it is a dead serious analysis which recommends additional troops in Afghanistan...
A very serious committment, which has only stemmed from the grim reality being faced in Afghanistan.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

"So Pakistan Lawnlessness areas are sanctuary and the whole 70% Afghanistan under Taliban..."

Please explain "70% under Taliban". I think that you actually read poorly and understand worse.

From ICOS-

Afghanistan Jan-August 2009

Now the number isn't actually 70%. It's 80%. Worse...until you read the fine print which indicates that we're talking about 80% of Afghanistan with a permanent taliban presence-not control. Please read-

"Data detailing the presence of the Taliban in Afghanistan was gathered from daily insurgent activity reports between January and September 2009. ICOS believes that the level of incidents recorded by this methodology is conservative, as it is based on public third-party reports, and not all incidents are made public.

Permanent presence: defined by provinces that average one (or more) insurgent attack (lethal and non-lethal) per week.

Substantial presence: an average one or more insurgent attacks per month and include residents who believe Taliban are active locally (based on frequency of Taliban sightings).

Light presence: defined by less than one insurgent attack per month and local residents don't believe Taliban is active locally (based on frequency of Taliban sightings). To calculate percentages, the total area of Afghanistan was divided by the total area hosting a permanent/ substantial/light Taliban presence."

One or more insurgent attack per week. If that's the case, Peshawar would likely qualify. There are many here who can't read well and have long misinterpreted this data.

Are you one of them? It would seem so.

Anywhere that ISAF stands, the taliban melt away. They control nothing. There's nothing that can't be taken from the taliban and there's nothing that the taliban have yet taken and held.

So there are virtually no Taliban Sanctuaries in afghanistan or if theres any then its level cannot be compared to the comfort they have in Pakistan's outlaw Area and Taliban in afghanistan dont even have a place to regroup,organise and Plan their attacks on ISAF ....?
Is this what your point is ....?