Friday, May 27, 2011

So, which one is BS?

Here's CNN reporting on a leak from government sources regarding bin Laden considering a deal with Pockeston:
Osama bin Laden considered seeking a deal with Pakistan under which al Qaeda leaders in the country would be protected and, in return, al Qaeda would refrain from attacking Pakistan, a U.S. official told CNN Friday.
Has AQ ever actually attacked Pakistan? Anyway, sounds almost like the deal UBL offered Saddam years ago, which was poo-poo'd by many on the left (along with other stuff). But it also strongly suggests a scenario where bin Laden and Pakistan were enemies, which would mean he was indeed hiding in plain sight right under their noses. Imagine him contacting Islamabad for a meeting- "by the way brothers, I'm just right up the road. Go almost til you get to your military academy and turn right".

Meanwhile, here's Bill Roggio reporting on Pakistan's military:
The leader of a terrorist alliance that operates in Kashmir and includes groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed said the Pakistani military allows it to operate freely and run hundreds of training camps.

Syed Salahuddin, the leader of the Hizbul Mujahideen, admitted that the Pakistani military permits his fighters to move freely and run training camps in the region.

"Our mujahideen can come and go at their own will," Salahuddin told a local news agency, according to The Times of India. "There is no question that the army can stop us."

"And we have hundreds of training camps in the state where we recruit and train the mujahideen," Salahuddin continued. He did not say if the camps were located inside Pakistan or in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
Or in other words, the military is either supporting terrorists or too afraid to confront them, or this story is BS. If they are too afraid to confront them why would bin Laden need a non-aggression pact? If they are supporting terrorist groups why would bin Laden need a non-aggression pact?

Perhaps Occam's Razor could help. Let's see, Bin Laden, hiding in plain sight in the garrison town of the Pakistani military for years, is said to have been totally invisible to all the military folks there yet the US was afraid to inform the Pakistani government about the raid for fear he would be tipped off by the Pakistanis. In other words, this can only mean the US Govt believed somebody in their government knew where he was. Sounds like he already had a non-aggression pact.

Now we are being told the Pakistani military supports terrorists and allows training camps to exist, which really shouldn't be surprising since they essentially created the Taliban. At the same time our government keeps telling us that Pakistan remains an important ally in the GWoT and actually helped us get bin Laden through all their great cooperation. So which story is BS? If you know please let the rest of us know.


Debbie said...

I don't know about a deal with Pakistan and Bin Laden, but my guess would be yes, they had to know he was there and allowed it.

As to the freedom of terror groups to go and come, train recruits, etc. in Pakistan, this is obviously true. Think back to many of the jihadists, where did they make a trip to for training, sometimes Afghanistan, sometimes Yemen, but mostly Pakistan will pop up somewhere in their history.

Right Truth

A.C. McCloud said...

Some on the left believe that bin Laden was actually a CIA asset in league with Pakistan, and that's why Bush never got him. IOW, explaining the 'gutsy call'. But if that's really the case then it means Obama pretty much knew where UBL was when he took office and timed his takedown for political reasons. Obviously, it's BS.

I've really lost all hope of figuring out our relationship with Pakistan.