Bin Laden Gets A Pass from Pakistan. Are they harboring terrorists now?

[OrangeEmpire]

Bin Laden Gets a Pass from Pakistan

Osama bin Laden, America's most wanted man, will not face capture in Pakistan if he agrees to lead a "peaceful life," Pakistani officials tell ABC News.

The surprising announcement comes as Pakistani army officials announced they were pulling their troops out of the North Waziristan region as part of a "peace deal" with the Taliban.

If he is in Pakistan, bin Laden "would not be taken into custody," Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan told ABC News in a telephone interview, "as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen."

Bin Laden is believed to be hiding somewhere in the tribal areas of Pakistan, near the Afghanistan border, but U.S. officials say his precise location is unknown.

In addition to the pullout of Pakistani troops, the "peace agreement" between Pakistan and the Taliban also provides for the Pakistani army to return captured Taliban weapons and prisoners.

"What this means is that the Taliban and al Qaeda leadership have effectively carved out a sanctuary inside Pakistan," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, the former White House counter-terrorism director.

The agreement was signed on the same day President Bush said the United States was working with its allies "to deny terrorists the enclaves they seek to establish in ungoverned areas across the world."

The Pakistani Army had gone into Waziristan, under heavy pressure from the United States, but faced a series of humiliating defeats at the hands of the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters.

"They're throwing the towel," said Alexis Debat, who is a Senior Fellow at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant. "They're giving al Qaeda and the Taliban a blank check and saying essentially make yourselves at home in the tribal areas," Debat said.

This is what we get for playing nice with Pakistan.

Pakistan Denies Bin Laden Gets a Pass
T
he government of Pakistan today denied it would allow Osama bin Laden to avoid capture under terms of a peace agreement it signed with Taliban leaders in the country's North Waziristan area.

"If he is in Pakistan, today or any time later, he will be taken into custody and brought to justice," the Pakistani ambassador to the United States, Mahmud Ali Durrani, said in a statement.

The ambassador said a Pakistani military spokesman, Major General Shaukat Sultan, had been "grossly misquoted" when he told ABC News Tuesday that bin Laden would not be taken into custody "as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen." The comments were recorded in a telephone interview with ABC News.

Q. ABC News: If bin Laden or Zawahiri were there, they could stay?

A. Gen. Sultan: No one of that kind can stay. If someone is there he will have to surrender, he will have to live like a good citizen, his whereabouts, exit travel would be known to the authorities.<p>

Q. ABC News: So, he wouldn't be taken into custody? He would stay there?<p>

A. Gen. Sultan: No, as long as one is staying like a peaceful citizen, one would not be taken into custody. One has to stay like a peaceful citizen and not allowed to participate in any kind of terrorist activity.

General Sultan said today it was "hair splitting" to speculate whether troops would be sent in if bin Laden was found in North Waziristan.

"If someone is found there, we will see what is to be done," General Sultan said today. "Pakistan is committed to the war on terror, and of course we will go after any terrorist found to be operating here," he said.

Under the terms of the peace agreement, the Pakistani Army promised to cease action in the area and to return captured Taliban weapons and soldiers.

Former White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, an ABC News consultant, said "What this means is that the Taliban and al Queida leadership have effectively carved out a sanctuary inside Pakistan."

General Sultan said today he "rejected" the idea that Pakistan had created a safe haven for terrorists.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/0...tan_denies.html

The US government has known where Bin Laden is for a while. We've been to worried about stepping on the Pakistani's toes and rialing up the islamic extremist locals who like Bin Laden.

Why are we "allies" with a dictator of a government with nuclear weapons who's a gun shot away from being replaced by islamic extremists in the first place?

Who's democractic neighbor India, has been attacked repeatedly by terrorists that Pakistan harbors?

Didn't we learn anything from our old alliances with people like Saddam Hussein or Bin Laden( he fought with the US backed Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets) ?

We are just going to end up going to war with a nuclear armed Pakistan at some point.


As for Bush, Yeah Bush talks tough and he compares Bin Laden to Hitler but then he turns around and hides intel from Congress about Pakistan increasing it's nuclear capabilities?

You know the same thing we're accusing Iran of doing, except Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and has already sold them to other rouge nations. Kinda makes you wonder?

I'm not proposing we go to war with Pakistan but we went to war with Iraq over basically nothing compared to this and the neocons are all itchy for a war with Iran who may have nucelar weapons in 5 or 10 years. Our current government sure does a weird job of picking and choosing our enemies/allies.

 

[OWB]

65% of the Pakastai people agree with and support Bin Laden...

 

[OrangeEmpire]

65% of the Pakastai people agree with and support Bin Laden...

From your perspective, do you consider them an ally?

In your opinion, what would be a viable solution with regards to dealing with Pakistan?

 

[OWB]

From your perspective, do you consider them an ally?

In your opinion, what would be a viable solution with regards to dealing with Pakistan?

Only if you can consider them an ally and still not trust them farther than you can throw them.

Pakistan claims that their military if more than capable of handling Bin Laden and Al Quaeda, but I don't buy it. I'm sure the U.S. has some special forces wandering around inside Pakistan's borders, but it's obviously not enough.

I'm not sure what a viable solution would be, but right now it seems like they're harboring terrorists more than they are fighting them.

I think that we woudn't have had this problem if the U.S. had a better plan and more troops in the Tora Bora region though. Leaving the escape route into Pakistan in the Northern Alliance's hands was a huge mistake..

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Only if you can consider them an ally and still not trust them further than you can throw them.

Pakistan claimes that their military if more than capable of handling Bin Laden and Al Quaeda, but I don't buy it. I'm sure the U.S. has some special forces wandering around inside Pakistan's borders, but it's obviously not enough.

I'm not sure what a viable solution would be, but right now it seems like they're harboring terrorists more than they are fighting them.

I think that we woudn't have had this problem if the U.S. had a better plan and more troops in the Tora Bora region though. Leaving the escape route into Pakistan in the Northern Alliance's hands was a huge mistake..

You know, sometimes you make sense..........even if you are a flaming democrat liberal........

 

[volinbham]

I think that we woudn't have had this problem if the U.S. had a better plan and more troops in the Tora Bora region though. Leaving the escape route into Pakistan in the Northern Alliance's hands was a huge mistake..

I agree with this. The Catch-22 was that taken action would have "harmed relations" with Pakistan. This at the time when everybody was complaining that we were "harming relationships". The PC factor was the problem. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Lesson: No matter what you do, someone is going to be pissed off so you might as well go for it!

 

[CSpindizzy]

Keep in mind that Pakistan is a military dictatorship. They overthrew a democratically elected government in 1999. So as we push for democracy, we ally ourselves with a quite thuggish military dictator with nuclear weapons that he has threatened India with repeatedly.

 

[OneManGang]

Despite platitudes from the administration and DOD, there has never been a whole lot of faith in the Paks. We have known since LONG before 9/11 that the Taliban were (and probably still are) creatures of Pakistani intelligence - also known as the ISI. What we lacked was a causus belli to go after the Paks the same way we went after the Talibaners. What we needed, though, was basing rights close to Afghanistan. In all likelihood the Paks were told they could let us use their bases or we could go through them to get to the Talibaners. The Paks saw the wisdom in not getting blasted because their proteges were stupid. They let the Coalition in and the US lifted its embargo on some warplanes. In effect, the Paks sold out the Talibaners for a dozen or so F-16s.

Mussarref has to walk a line: his own intel boys want him dead for aiding the infidels and the US, while needing his bases would also blast those same bases into rubble (along with Pakistan's nukes, which we have had five years to find) should he openly support the terrorists. So he chooses a middle path: with the US winding down its troops in Afghanistan, turning over the heavy lifting to NATO troops, he can now make noises about coming to terms with OBL and "keeping out the furriners." Meanwhile, anyone with an IQ over eggplant knows he has no way of doing this. The hills are alive with teams of SEALs and other spec ops types.

I found this on the Radio Free Europe website:

Replying to a question posed by "The New York Times" on 15 September, (2005) George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace put his view as follows. "For me," he said, "the outstanding question is, at the highest levels in Islamabad is there a conviction that capturing or killing [Osama] bin Laden would be good for the leadership of Pakistan?"

Perkovich continued: "And given the answer to that question, how hard are they willing to try? And can they afford to be seen as being solidly on America's side? I think Musharraf also worries about whether or not Washington will stay the course. Therefore, he's got to keep the Americans online: hold back something that they want. And, in that respect, Osama could be seen as an insurance policy for them."

World: Pakistanis Say U.S. Raid Killed Al-Qaeda Leaders - RADIO FREE EUROPE / RADIO LIBERTY

This last rings true. What it also means is that OBL has to mind HIS "P's and Q's" or the Paks might just decide they need a few dozen M-1s to go with their F-16s.

 

[CSpindizzy]

On the flip side Musharraf has to do the same. I'm sure he's more concerned about the devil and his followers inside his own borders than appeasing the US on the other side of the planet. Considering he has a nuke, I don't think he'd risk anything for some F-16s and M-1s. One slip-up would cost him his job, his life, his country, and radicals getting the nukes.

 

[herksrus]

I say let then gather in one little town. HECK YEAH!! I would love to personally drop a few MOABS on any place they like to hang out!:rock: