'No Pakistani official had knowledge of Osama': Grenier

[mymeaningislion]

i think indians are getting angry because they thought now america have found so called osama so now we can fire using america's shoulder but unfortunately it didn't happened and now they are in great anger on the loss of opportunity........... so sad

 

[Vinod2070]

^ They've never told of any instance of them passing information to Pakistan and that information being compromised. So I am afraid no, they're just making speculations and rumours.

There are several instances. The few that I have read about include a missile strike launched during Clinton days that was informed to Musharraf as it was about to overfly Pakistan. An hour later, the missile found an empty tent.

There were recent reports of some bomb factories that were informed to the ISI and the militants were duly informed and ran away before the strikes.

 

[SMC]

Can we know about any instances after 9/11 and before the raid? Nothing I've heard of falls in that range.

 

[FaujHistorian]

There are several instances. The few that I have read about include a missile strike launched during Clinton days that was informed to Musharraf as it was about to overfly Pakistan. An hour later, the missile found an empty tent.

There were recent reports of some bomb factories that were informed to the ISI and the militants were duly informed and ran away before the strikes.

As usual people are getting carried away with cherry picked examples.

ISI/Pak army and US army have performed 1000s of missions together. And if the best you could come with is the stuff above, then I say my dear poster, it is flawed conclusion at best.


Your example can be compared to the following case study.

Pakistan supplies 99% of fuel and lethal weapons to NATO/US forces. 1000s of trucks take this material from Karachi to Kabul/Kandhar on daily basis. That makes 30,000+ trucks a month. Then you hear the sad news that 20 trucks a month get attacked by Talib-itches and some of them get burned.

Based on your excellent maths and stat analysis, what would you conclude?

A) Pakistan provides safest possible passage to NATO supply line
B) Pakistan cannot provide safe passage
C) Pakistan does not allow passage of supplies to NATO?
D) Something else vastly different from A,B,C

Is it A, B, C, or D?


peace.

 

[Vinod2070]

As usual people are getting carried away with cherry picked examples.

ISI/Pak army and US army have performed 1000s of missions together. And if the best you could come with is the stuff above, then I say my dear poster, it is flawed conclusion at best.


Your example can be compared to the following case study.

Pakistan supplies 99% of fuel and lethal weapons to NATO/US forces. 1000s of trucks take this material from Karachi to Kabul/Kandhar on daily basis. That makes 30,000+ trucks a month. Then you hear the sad news that 20 trucks a month get attacked by Talib-itches and some of them get burned.

Based on your excellent maths and stat analysis, what would you conclude?

A) Pakistan provides safest possible passage to NATO supply line
B) Pakistan cannot provide safe passage
C) Pakistan does not allow passage of supplies to NATO?
D) Something else vastly different from A,B,C

Is it A, B, C, or D?


peace.

I am obviously not privy to all the details, especially the really sensitive ones, and I suspect nor are you.

What we know is that the US administration didn't trust Pakistan enough with the information, even at the risk of greatly complicating the operation.

We also see the comments from senior US officials including the president which reinforces the same point.

So there are issues of trust and it is based on information which is not all in the public domain.

 

[FaujHistorian]

I am obviously not privy to all the details, especially the really sensitive ones, and I suspect nor are you.

What we know is that the US administration didn't trust Pakistan enough with the information, even at the risk of greatly complicating the operation.

We also see the comments from senior US officials including the president which reinforces the same point.

So there are issues of trust and it is based on information which is not all in the public domain.

Dear poster,


For some reason you missed this point:


ISI/Pak army and US army have performed 1000s of missions together. And if the best you could come with is the stuff above, then I say my dear poster, it is flawed conclusion at best.



Killing Ben Fing Ladeen was a very sensitive mission from many many different angles both political and military.

There was fear (miscalculation) that Paksitani Mullahs will fill the streets, burn down the cities, and bring down AZ government.

Luckily this didn't happen. But the fear were not totally misplaced.

There was a plan in place to make sure it would be USA only operation. Even Saudis refused to have anything to do with it. They too were worried about backlash in Saudi.

You want to look at this affair only from one angle, but the US admn and Pak army was looking at it from many many angles.

Prez Obama never accused anyone in Pak if you want to imply this in your post.

Only some mid- low level advisers did the chest thumping and BTW they were strongly admonished by State department and the DOD.


No one even US admn had realized that 10 years afer 9/11 Qaida has become irrelevant in Arab streets. Especially after Arab spring, who gives an f to Qaida and its dead leader.

However stabilization of Afghanistan and Pak FATA is a serious work that will take years if not decades to come. And that my dear poster cannot be done without the help of Pak army.

This is why I said earlier, it is a team effort. One team member scoring one goal doesn't mean we should start infighting and destroy the team from within.


peace.

 

[humanfirst]

The same pakistani members who cheer for afghan taliban and celebrate the death of american soldiers in afghanistan are wondering why americans didnt trust pakistanis in bin laden operation...lol..

 

[Vinod2070]

Dear poster,


For some reason you missed this point:


ISI/Pak army and US army have performed 1000s of missions together. And if the best you could come with is the stuff above, then I say my dear poster, it is flawed conclusion at best.



Killing Ben Fing Ladeen was a very sensitive mission from many many different angles both political and military.

There was fear (miscalculation) that Paksitani Mullahs will fill the streets, burn down the cities, and bring down AZ government.

Luckily this didn't happen. But the fear were not totally misplaced.

There was a plan in place to make sure it would be USA only operation. Even Saudis refused to have anything to do with it. They too were worried about backlash in Saudi.

You want to look at this affair only from one angle, but the US admn and Pak army was looking at it from many many angles.

Prez Obama never accused anyone in Pak if you want to imply this in your post.

Only some mid- low level advisers did the chest thumping and BTW they were strongly admonished by State department and the DOD.


No one even US admn had realized that 10 years afer 9/11 Qaida has become irrelevant in Arab streets. Especially after Arab spring, who gives an f to Qaida and its dead leader.

However stabilization of Afghanistan and Pak FATA is a serious work that will take years if not decades to come. And that my dear poster cannot be done without the help of Pak army.

This is why I said earlier, it is a team effort. One team member scoring one goal doesn't mean we should start infighting and destroy the team from within.


peace.

So you are suggesting Pakistan was aware of the operation and very much a part of it?

May be you are right and you know what is not publicly known.

I am just going by what is publicly known and was claimed by both USA and Pakistan.

I will be happy if what you say is true and Pakistan is serious about rooting out terror and not selectively using it by harboring Taliban, Haqqanis etc..

You know the good Taliban bad Taliban stuff, the strategic depth stuff, the planning for when the Yankee goes home stuff etc.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Isn't that the true question afterall... Why did US Chose that scenario????

Because the US Establishment (Administration, Military, Intelligence and associated bureaucracy) is a bunch of paranoid, ungrateful and deceitful bastarrds .....

Why did Hitler choose to massacre so many innocents ...?

 

[muse]

ISI is damned if the knew and damned if they didnt.

What is the larger issue ? Is it ISI or Pakistan??

Allow a transparent, professional and exhaustive investigation - then let the chips fall where they may -- I am persuaded that ISI is just an organ of the state, it is not the State itself and it's more important that the State regain it's credibility, that the state, once again direct the ISI and not the other way around.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Absolutely, there was a reason why Americans all the way up to President Obama didn't think sharing information with Pakistan was a good option. It was based on proven history.

They had tried it earlier and the target of opportunity was duly notified every single time.

They tried it again after the OBL raid for some bomb factories.

Guess what happened again!

Most of the allegations you mention above cannot be corroborated independently, AFAIK have not been officially made by the US with any supporting facts/evidence, and have been officially investigated and refuted by Pakistan.

Not to mention that Pakistan has neutralized far more high, mid and low level AQ members than any other country (KSM and Libbi for example) and provided significant intelligence through all these years, including on the courier, that enabled the US to piece it together and determine OBL's hideout.

So, my last post remains the best applicable explanation to for US behavior in carrying out the Abbottabad raid.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Bin ladin was in bed with ISI for many years now as he was seen as a state asset everyone knew he was in Pakistan all along.


Mobile phone links Pakistan's ISI to Osama bin Laden courier - Telegraph

Yet one more unsubstantiated piece of propaganda rubbish in the Western media ....

And even if the article is taken to be true, it only connects X to Y, and then claims that the ISI was supporting X because it knew someone in Y.

Yep, more of the 'CIA and Mossad perpetrated 9/11' kinda logic ...

 

[Vinod2070]

Most of the allegations you mention above cannot be corroborated independently, AFAIK have not been officially made by the US with any supporting facts/evidence, and have been officially investigated and refuted by Pakistan.

I guess the events I mentioned have been in the public domain and the allegations were made by the Americans. I have read them in media articles, TV reports even books by ex US officials.

I don't know of the officially investigated and refuted part. Obviously it has not been convincing enough, if it ever happened.

Not to mention that Pakistan has neutralized far more high, mid and low level AQ members than any other country (KSM and Libbi for example) and provided significant intelligence through all these years, including on the courier, that enabled the US to piece it together and determine OBL's hideout.

Many people suspect it was part of the policy of "running with the hare and hunting with the hounds" which even your current president acknowledged. Bring out one leader out of the hat every time the pressure increased....

The AQ were caught from Pakistan because they all chose to take shelter in Pakistan. Most were found in large cities, some from the homes of PA officials.

Wonder why they found the place so hospitable!

So, my last post remains the best applicable explanation to for US behavior in carrying out the Abbottabad raid.

In fact it is quite a self serving one.

If only play on words could solve issues of the real world!

 

[lem34]

Dear poster,

You are spreading yellow journalism for sure. Nowhere in this news, it is proven that ISI was in direct contact with ben fing ladeen.

Qaida is part of the terror team like TTP that has declared war on Pakistan and on Pak army. And yet you continue to believe that ISI Brigadier would allow TTP to kill his fellow brigadier in Pak army.

Do you even know that ISI officers are Pak army officers and thus protect each other like officers and soldiers of any other force in the world?


peace.

Since when have american and now indians ever let truth get in the way of their statements

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I guess the events I mentioned have been in the public domain and the allegations were made by the Americans. I have read them in media articles, TV reports even books by ex US officials.

Please point to an official accusation supported by evidence on the part of the US.

I don't know of the officially investigated and refuted part. Obviously it has not been convincing enough, if it ever happened.

Why would the 'West be convinced' by Pakistan's investigations and refutation? It is rather 'self serving' for the West to pretend that the explanations and investigations are 'not convincing', so as to justify their illegal actions and pressure Pakistan.

Many people suspect it was part of the policy of "running with the hare and hunting with the hounds" which even your current president acknowledged. Bring out one leader out of the hat every time the pressure increased....

Even if true, the 'running with the hares and hunting with the hounds' was an argument applicable in the case of some Afghan Taliban factions (Mullah Omar, Haqqani, Hekmetyar) only, and never applicable in the case of Al Qaeda.

The AQ were caught from Pakistan because they all chose to take shelter in Pakistan. Most were found in large cities, some from the homes of PA officials.

Wonder why they found the place so hospitable!

Pakistan was the most feasible location for these people when Afghanistan was invaded - the porous border with Afghanistan, the lack of coordination between the US military and Pakistani forces during the invasion and war, the extensive autonomy enjoyed by the Tribes along the border in Pakistan, anti-Americanism and pro-Taliban politicians and groups - all of that contributed to the decision of AQ to relocate to Pakistan.

None of that indicates or supports the allegation of 'official Pakistani military and intelligence complicity with AQ'.

In fact it is quite a self serving one.

If only play on words could solve issues of the real world!

The 'self serving' arguments are those adopted by the US and their Indian cheerleaders in pushing out propaganda against Pakistan, given that those arguments have and are being refuted and shown to be flawed, as in this case.

Snide rhetoric won't make your allegations 'true' - you still have to provide credible evidence to support them.