Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pak nuke scientist A Q Khan met Osama: Report
SIFY ^

Posted on 04/03/2005 8:30:54 AM PDT by milestogo

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last
To: Saberwielder
Firstly, it would be hard to argue with someone who is okay with the release of nuclear scientists who help Al Qaeda.

For the second time: Your take -- your logic. It follows from nothing that I said. You show poor judgement. What other judgement's of yours are poor?

BTW, both Mehmood and Majid were questioned about possible ties to Al Qaeda. They were not charged with such by Pakistan and there is no record that we accused them of ties to Al Qaeda or that we requested that they be detained at that time. It is only now that the ties are being documented.

Unlike some with very poor memory, I haven't forgotten that it was the same Musharraf who deep sixed a 1998 plan by us to grab Osama Bin Laden.

Musharraf came to power in 1999.

It was the same Musharraf who allowed Al Qaeda to use its Pakistani bases and facilities and other assets to be able to perpetrate 9/11 and kill 3,000 Americans. Read the 9/11 commission report if you want to understand what went on and how 9/11 actually happened as well the despicable role played by Musharraf's government in stymieing our efforts, especially in early 2001. After 9/11, Musharraf has and still allows his spy agency to host senior Taliban leaders including Mulla Omar. Musharraf also winked at A.Q Khan's nuclear trade even after we warned him since late 2001 and has conducted the farcical drama with the pardoning of A.Q Khan in 2004 and harmed our security severely by directly causing two big crises in Iran and North Korea and still blocking access to Khan. He has done less than zero with the madrassas which churn out a million potential terrorists every year. He hasn't sidelined the mullahs but rather he has enabled them while he jailed secular moderate politicians. I could go on and on. He has done a bare minimum of what we asked him to do, just enough not to force us to call him out. A very clever game.

You rattle off charges. You don't document a thing. Do you know what it means to document your claims? Do you know what sources are? Do you know what named sources are? Do you come to conclusions without the need for name sources? I don't!

Finally, Pakistan has about 16 of their current F-16 A/Bs in working condition. You cannot compare that to 70-80 F-16 Block 52s unless you know nothing about military aviation.

"About 16" of their F-16's in working order? More undocumented claims. They currently have 32 F-16's. Link

I'll repeat: Document Musharraf's criminal behavior in the WOT. Do I have to document all of Musharraf's positive behavior in the WOT?

41 posted on 04/03/2005 8:41:28 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Saberwielder
I can see regrets coming should a mullah General take over a Pakistan armed with 70-80 F-16 Blk/52s and nuclear weapons.

Document that the proposed F-16's are type Blk/52's and quantity 70-80.

42 posted on 04/03/2005 8:43:42 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

First of all,you can look at the number of systems in an airforce,by counting helos,transporters & training systems along with fighters(which I didn't do).Even if you did that,Pakistan's airforce would still be around 600 aircraft.Now going by fighter jets & recon & combat capable trainers,Pakistan's AF is still in the 400 to 450 region.

http://www.geocities.com/Baja/Dunes/1107/inven01.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/air-force-equipment.htm

About Pakistan's F-16s,the number of aircraft in active service is rated to be at 28 or less given that several have been canibalised for spares & a few lost to attrition.The figure of 32 has been bandied about for close to a decade.


43 posted on 04/03/2005 9:19:19 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
Seems like you need some educatin' on this topic. I will do so in a detailed manner soon. But till then a couple of quick notes. Musharraf was Pakistan's army chief in 1998. And I did say 9/11 commission report, didn't I? Read Chapters 2 and 4
Though Bin Ladin's destination was Afghanistan, Pakistan was the nation that held the key to his ability to use Afghanistan as a base from which to revive his ambitious enterprise for war against the United States.

It is unlikely that Bin Ladin could have returned to Afghanistan had Pakistan disapproved. The Pakistani military intelligence service probably had advance knowledge of his coming, and its officers may have facilitated his travel. During his entire time in Sudan, he had maintained guesthouses and training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan. These were part of a larger network used by diverse organizations for recruiting and training fighters for Islamic insurgencies in such places as Tajikistan, Kashmir, and Chechnya. Pakistani intelligence officers reportedly introduced Bin Ladin to Taliban leaders in Kandahar, their main base of power, to aid his reassertion of control over camps near Khowst, out of an apparent hope that he would now expand the camps and make them available for training Kashmiri militants

As to the plan to nab Bin Laden, it was foiled in 1999 after Musharraf took power. But it was discussed with Pakistan's PM Nawaz Sharif in 1998 after our cruise missile attacks failed to get Bin Laden and before Musharraf deposed Sharif. See this

The Pakistani commando team was up and running and ready to strike by October 1999, a former official said. "It was an enterprise," the official said. "It was proceeding." Still stung by their failure to get bin Laden the previous year, Clinton officials were delighted at the operation, which they believed provided a real opportunity to eliminate bin Laden. "It was like Christmas," a source said.

The operation was aborted on Oct. 12, 1999, however, when Sharif was overthrown in a military coup led by Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who refused to continue the operation despite substantial efforts by the Clinton administration to revive it.


44 posted on 04/03/2005 9:19:23 PM PDT by Saberwielder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Saberwielder
The Pakistani commando team was up and running and ready to strike by October 1999, a former official said. "It was an enterprise," the official said. "It was proceeding." Still stung by their failure to get bin Laden the previous year, Clinton officials were delighted at the operation, which they believed provided a real opportunity to eliminate bin Laden. "It was like Christmas," a source said.

The operation was aborted on Oct. 12, 1999, however, when Sharif was overthrown in a military coup led by Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who refused to continue the operation despite substantial efforts by the Clinton administration to revive it.

Your source -- Washington Post and Woodward using unnamed sources, most likely from the Clinton administration. It looks like a Clinton defense about why he didn't get OBL. Do you trust that?

45 posted on 04/03/2005 9:30:41 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
About Pakistan's F-16s,the number of aircraft in active service is rated to be at 28 or less given that several have been canibalised for spares & a few lost to attrition.The figure of 32 has been bandied about for close to a decade.

My link and both of your links say that the number is 32. Where do you get the number of 28 that are ready for active service?

46 posted on 04/03/2005 9:42:25 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

Many recent newsarticles(esp those talking of the sale of new F-16s) put it at 28 eg,Pakistan's 28 existing F-16s maybe upgraded.Anyway I did say that only 28 or so were in "active service",so the number in existence may be 32,but those are likely to be grounded.If you noticed both links,you could have seen that there are rejoinders that the numbers maybe lesser due to cannibalisation.


47 posted on 04/03/2005 9:46:26 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Saberwielder
Read Chapters 2 and 4 Though Bin Ladin's destination was Afghanistan, Pakistan was the nation that held the key to his ability to use Afghanistan as a base from which to revive his ambitious enterprise for war against the United States. It is unlikely that Bin Ladin could have returned to Afghanistan had Pakistan disapproved. The Pakistani military intelligence service probably had advance knowledge of his coming, and its officers may have facilitated his travel. During his entire time in Sudan, he had maintained guesthouses and training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan. These were part of a larger network used by diverse organizations for recruiting and training fighters for Islamic insurgencies in such places as Tajikistan, Kashmir, and Chechnya. Pakistani intelligence officers reportedly introduced Bin Ladin to Taliban leaders in Kandahar, their main base of power, to aid his reassertion of control over camps near Khowst, out of an apparent hope that he would now expand the camps and make them available for training Kashmiri militants

Will look at this more tomorrow.

The quick response: I believe the NW terretories of Pakistan are very independent and are hard to control by the central Pakistan government. It took several years for Musharref to penatrate South Waziristan to begin anti-Taliban operations in 2003 and 2004.

48 posted on 04/03/2005 9:47:57 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: worst-case scenario; FreeReign
With regard to proliferation of WMD, Khan is huge player but only a drop in the bucket. The "straw-purchases" of dual-use equipment is a problem and only held in some check by scrupulous dealers. Where do states get their highly specialized equipment needed for a nuclear program? From countries that are supposed to have tight controls. Well, we've seen that's not the case. Hang Khan then let's look inward.
49 posted on 04/03/2005 9:59:51 PM PDT by endthematrix (Declare 2005 as the year the battle for freedom from tax slavery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dog

Ping


50 posted on 04/04/2005 8:52:14 AM PDT by Cap Huff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Saberwielder
Read the history of the region. Also read about Iran and the weapons we sold that Khomeini inherited.

The weapons we sold to Iran (most importantly where F-14's) - These never came back to haunt us....as you claim will be the case in Pak - (what happened was it make Iran much less war effective....thus soon after they broke ties with us ....Their ability to maintain there most dominate aircraft (F-14A's) became virtually impossible....outside of cannibalism from their existing planes.

You say it is the symbolism that matters..

Sorry, we are in a World war on Terror - Silly symbolism (with regard to this) means very little -

And to suggest SAMs are a defensive weapon and that fighter aircraft are not - Ridiculous - (just ask the Israelis how effective top notch fighters can be as a deterrent....a "defensive" weapon ) - Having a formidable air force is an extremely important DEFENSIVE shield (that can obviously be used as an offensive asset as well)>

51 posted on 04/04/2005 2:51:03 PM PDT by SevenMinusOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson