What's new

Pentagon for attack on camps in N. Waziristan

Cheetah786

PDF VETERAN
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
9,002
Reaction score
-3
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
WASHINGTON, Feb 19: The Pentagon has advocated direct US strikes against alleged Al Qaeda training camps inside North Waziristan where the terrorist group appears to have made new inroads, the New York Times reported on Monday.

The concern about a resurgent Al Qaeda has been the subject of intensive discussion at high levels of the Bush administration, the report said, and has reignited debate about how to address Pakistan's role as a haven for militants without undermining the government of President Pervez Musharraf.

The Pentagon, the report said, wanted direct US strikes against the camps, but others warned that any raids could result in civilian casualties.

“State Department officials say that increased American pressure could undermine President Musharraf's military-led government,” the report added.

Last week, President Bush's senior counterterrorism adviser, Frances Fragos Townsend, went to Afghanistan to consult security officials about rising US concerns on Al Qaeda's resurgence in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Quoting unnamed intelligence sources, the newspaper reported that Al Qaeda, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden, had established a new operating organization after being ousted more than five years ago from its safe haven in formerly Taliban-run Afghanistan.

Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, in particular appeared to be coordinating operations from North Waziristan, where the Pakistani government had little control, the report claimed.

The report identified several new Al Qaeda compounds in North Waziristan, including one that it said might be training operatives for strikes against targets beyond Afghanistan.American analysts told the newspaper that the compounds functioned under a loose command structure and were operated by groups of Arab, Pakistani and Afghan militants allied with Al Qaeda. They receive guidance from their commanders and Zawahri. Osama bin Laden, who has long played less of an operational role, appears to have little direct involvement.

The report said the training camps had yet to reach the size and level of sophistication of the Al Qaeda camps established in Afghanistan under Taliban rule. But groups of 10 to 20 men were being trained at the camps, the officials said, and the Al Qaeda infrastructure in the region was gradually becoming more mature.

As recently as 2005, American intelligence assessments described senior leaders of Al Qaeda as cut off from their foot soldiers and able only to provide inspiration for future attacks. But more recent intelligence describes the organization's hierarchy as intact and strengthening.

American officials and analysts said a variety of factors in Pakistan had come together to allow "core Al Qaeda leadership” to regain some of its strength. The emergence of a relative haven in North Waziristan and the surrounding area has helped senior operatives communicate more effectively with the outside world via courier and the Internet.

The newspaper said that investigation into last summer's failed plot to bomb airliners in London has led counterterrorism officials to what they say are "clear linkages" between the plotters and core Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan. American analysts point out that the trials of terrorism suspects in Britain revealed that some of the defendants had been trained in Pakistan.

In a videotaped statement last year, Zawahri claimed responsibility for the July 2005 London suicide bombings. Included in the same tape was a statement by one of the London suicide bombers, pledging allegiance to Al Qaeda. Two of the four bombers travelled to Pakistan prior to the attack.

The NYT report said that some counter-terrorism experts question the seriousness of Pakistan's commitment to the fight against terror. They argued that elements of Pakistan's military still supported the Taliban and saw them as a valuable proxy to counter the rising influence of India.

Since 2001, members of various militant groups in Pakistan had increased their cooperation with one another in the tribal areas, the report said.

It quoted analysts as saying that North Waziristan became a hub of militant activity last year, after President Musharraf negotiated a treaty with tribal leaders in the area.

Officials told the newspaper that the United States still had little idea where Osama bin Laden and Zawahri had been hiding since 2001, but that the two men were not believed to be present in the camps currently operating in North Waziristan.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/02/20/top6.htm
 
they cant get their act togather in afghanistan that is y they r trying to make pakistan the escape goat
its the poppy crop that is fueling afghanistans insurgency
 
Send in SSG recon units and laser designate any and every terrorist infrastructure in North Waziristan then bomb f*** out of it.

= Problem 1 solved.

Then build a minefield and fence Durand line that can rival the 38th parallel between North and South Korea.

= Problem 2 solved

Put any and every Afghans/troublesome FATA tribes on trucks and send them back for Karzai to deal with.

= Problem 3 solved.



= Problem all problems solved
 
Send in SSG recon units and laser designate any and every terrorist infrastructure in North Waziristan then bomb f*** out of it.

= Problem 1 solved.

Then build a minefield and fence Durand line that can rival the 38th parallel between North and South Korea.

= Problem 2 solved

Put any and every Afghans/troublesome FATA tribes on trucks and send them back for Karzai to deal with.

= Problem 3 solved.

= Problem all problems solved

Valid points!
But we're used to this kind of language from US officials already, all barks no bites. ;)
 
US bombing Pakistan would be a tragedy. It would make Mushraff;s position even more vulnerable.
 
US bombing Pakistan would a tragedy. It would make Mushraff;s position even more vulnerable.

True say.
Its a messy issue as it kind of involves dealing with one problem but it can lead to more harm than good.

The alternative of peace demonstrated by the Waziristan accord does not seem to be working efficiently though and these people are too much of a threat to just be contained.

By all accounts the only reason that people in Waziristan kicked up a fuss was due to heavy handed army tactics which lead to collateral damage. It is the basis of their justification for attacks when they say innocent people are killed by the military.

The end result of what must be done is clear for all to see but how to take that journey is unclear.

Despite my reservations about killing fellow Pathans it may be necessary to carry out such a drastic campaign by the use of methods employed by the Israelis such as a deliberate policy of assasination.

GIVE NO QUARTER TO TERRORISTS
 
US bombing Pakistan would a tragedy. It would make Mushraff;s position even more vulnerable.

first of all it isn't bombing Pakistan.its a simple approach to the problem by mushy.its captains mess let captain clean it up.
those people have the habit of giving there word and not keeping it.
if the Americans were to do the job.all those tribes that are the trouble maker will not be able to complain.
Its and excellent move by mushy letting the Americans do the job.
shuting all those so called critics that say Pakistan isn't doing enough.And mushy can always launch the so called protest(wink wink) to the Americans.its a brilliant move.:flag:
 
first of all it isn't bombing Pakistan.its a simple approach to the problem by mushy.its captains mess let captain clean it up.
those people have the habit of giving there word and not keeping it.
if the Americans were to do the job.all those tribes that are the trouble maker will not be able to complain.
Its and excellent move by mushy letting the Americans do the job.
shuting all those so called critics that say Pakistan isn't doing enough.And mushy can always launch the so called protest(wink wink) to the Americans.its a brilliant move.:flag:

Thats wrong way of looking at things cheetah. Its your land, you govern it, how can you let a foreign power come and bomb your land? Can you imagine what would happen if some civilians/kids are killed in "friendly bombing"?

Thats the entire issue, how mushraff has dealth with the issue. Mushraff is portraying himself as fighting terrorists as part of WoT which is primarily a Bush agenda. And bcoz of this the extremists are painting him as bowing to american pressures.

If he had chosen to fight it on his own behalf and not towing to the US line in public , support would have been more widely available.
 
Thats wrong way of looking at things cheetah. Its your land, you govern it, how can you let a foreign power come and bomb your land? Can you imagine what would happen if some civilians/kids are killed in "friendly bombing"?
If US launched an attack in Sindh or Punjab it would be a complete different story.
Since the attacks have occured in troubled area's, i.e. FATA where GoP has acknowledged some kind of local involvement we can only protest and hope it doesn't happen again.
As long as the terrorists have access to our side the US would find a reason to attack and get away with it.

Thats the entire issue, how mushraff has dealth with the issue. Mushraff is portraying himself as fighting terrorists as part of WoT which is primarily a Bush agenda. And bcoz of this the extremists are painting him as bowing to american pressures.
No, thats a misconception.
In his book he clearly argued about this misconception. Its true that he found himself under sever pressure from the US to join WoT but his motives were to save Pakistan from the consequences and talibanisation.
Very few people understand that.

If he had chosen to fight it on his own behalf and not towing to the US line in public , support would have been more widely available.
He is doing that already, moderation and soft image of Pakistan is a top priority on his agenda.
Its the opposition and islamic hardliners who've abused many events to discredit him and his government to score a political mile.
Its the dirty side of power politics.
 
If US launched an attack in Sindh or Punjab it would be a complete different story.
Since the attacks have occured in troubled area's, i.e. FATA where GoP has acknowledged some kind of local involvement we can only protest and hope it doesn't happen again.
As long as the terrorists have access to our side the US would find a reason to attack and get away with it..

I dont have solution as to how you can tackle that solution, i think you would have to live with it.

No, thats a misconception.
In his book he clearly argued about this misconception. Its true that he found himself under sever pressure from the US to join WoT but his motives were to save Pakistan from the consequences and talibanisation.
Very few people understand that .

What matters is perception, intention lies underneath.

In all the interviews he ahs given a image asd to he is dong the best he can to contribute towards WoT. And for the masses and for the whole world that term is patented by Bush.

So when he says WoT, he is saying he is fighting with US against the extremists.
 
I dont have solution as to how you can tackle that solution, i think you would have to live with it.
The solution is fencing the border and setting up a 24/7/365 hightech surveilliance, the latter with US assitance ofcourse. Bush is spending billions in Iraq and Afgahistan, giving us some more toys wouldn't hurt anyone.

Much of our needs can come from the EDA programme.

What matters is perception, intention lies underneath.
Perception is often based on prejudice and ignorance and it can be manipulated.

India has been sucessfull in manipulating the media and perception, that's what I'm saying.
 
India has been sucessfull in manipulating the media and perception, that's what I'm saying.

If it has benefited us then a credit is due.
 
Bull said:
Originally Posted by Bull
I dont have solution as to how you can tackle that solution, i think you would have to live with it.

Its very easy and conveniet for US and Nato to blame us for their failures, portray us as scapegoat.
US and Nato forces are the best equipped in the world, they can videotape Saddam while taking a dump and yet they fail to stop insurgants to cross border from the Afghanis side?

The hard truth is that its working well for the US, gives them reason and international support to stay involved in the region.
Just wondering how the US defence industry is faring well since 9/11 and how much business US firms have scored eversince. :rolleyes:
 
i completely agree with you this is a ploy to stay in the region longer. they might also want to stay cauz of the pipeline that is going to come through afghanistan and then gwader and shipped off to the americans.

i think that v should give more and more development aid to these areas so that their strong reliance on mullahs is demenished.
 
Back
Top Bottom