Posted on 05/14/2011 4:56:10 AM PDT by Libloather
Pakistan lawmakers: no repeat of bin Laden raid
AFP
May 14, 2011, 6:40 pm
ISLAMABAD (AFP) - Pakistan lawmakers pledged Saturday there must be no repeat of the US commando raid that killed Osama bin Laden and said drone strikes targeting terrorists near the border with Afghanistan must end.
The strongly-worded message came after a parliamentary session lasting more than 10 hours, in which MPs debated the "situation arising from unilateral US action in Abbottabad," north of Islamabad, where the Al-Qaeda chief was found and shot dead on May 2 after a decade-long manhunt.
The statement came hours after Pakistan's Taliban claimed responsibility for a double suicide bombing on a paramilitary police training centre that killed 89 people in the first major attack to avenge bin Laden's death.
Around 140 people were wounded, 40 of them critically, in the attack -- the deadliest this year in Pakistan, where the government is in crisis over the death of the man blamed for the 9/11 attacks in the United States.
**SNIP**
They called on the government "to appoint an independent commission on the Abbottabad operation, fix responsibility and recommend necessary measures to ensure that such an incident does not recur".
Parliament also threatened to withdraw logistical cooperation for US troops based in Afghanistan and hit out at the drone strikes.
"Such drone attacks must be stopped forthwith, failing which the government will be constrained to consider taking necessary steps including withdrawal of (the) transit facility allowed to NATO," the resolution said.
Most supplies and equipment required by foreign soldiers in Afghanistan are shipped through Pakistan's main northwestern border crossing. Supply convoys are frequently attacked by insurgents.
(Excerpt) Read more at nz.news.yahoo.com ...
Long piece @ the link.
Cut off all foreign aid to Pock- e-stahn.
He should have been threatening himself, and strongly hinting that the US may consider Pakistan responsible for hiding Ben Laden, and allowing him to continue to direct Al Qaeda. After the operation, the Pakistanis should have felt ashamed that their two-faced role has been exposed to the whole world to see. Instead, they have the chutzpah to complain about the operation!
Pakistan is a touchy situation. The government isn’t all that secure in its spot. Duplicity in that part of the world may be necessary to maintain the appearance of control.
Scolding the U.S. publicly and permitting military action behind the scenes may be the best we can hope for. We are not well positioned for a fourth theater of operations.
Having said that, I doubt Obama looked any further ahead than his sagging approval rating before making a decision. Any delay or dithering on his part (they say he waited 12 hours) was indecisive weakness or consideration of the domestic political implications. I would wager that his biggest concern was alienating his leftist base by appearing to be a war monger.
That’s certainly my take on the situation.
All part of O’s plan. This will be his excuse to pull our troops out of Afghanistan.
"Such drone attacks must be stopped forthwith, failing which the government will be constrained to consider taking necessary steps including withdrawal of (the) transit facility allowed to NATO," the resolution said.
Most supplies and equipment required by foreign soldiers in Afghanistan are shipped through Pakistan's main northwestern border crossing. Supply convoys are frequently attacked by insurgents.
So let me get this straight: They are supposed allies in the WOT and they provide logistical support. Terrorists attack their supply convoys and we find, then kill the troublemakers they seem unable or unwilling to deal with. In response to our assistance and life saving actions, they will stop the supplies. OK.
What an effed up place.
Excess verbage for local consumption.
They like their checks from Uncle Sam.
Yep. I saw another headline that said that Pakistan will shoot down the drones*.
*If we were told to do so.
So, yeah, they say stuff like that for the folks back home.
Iraq...Afganistan...next Pakistan? Keep it up, A$$HOLES...you'll find out.
The Bush’s have a “way” of making statements, I guess. The worst example was “Read my lips” ... but the best example is “You’re either with us or against us”. It is rather simple to decided if Pakistan is “with us or against us” .. and if they are against us, then stop the aid. If they get “out of hand” nuke them to oblivion. Problem is, with our “politically correct” wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no real “downside” for the miscreants. Our “end game” is an attempt at rehabilitation. We should not get in a war unless we are there to be VICTORIOUS, (Libya .. another perfect example). If you are not willing to go in and TAKE THEM OUT, collateral damage and all, then you shouldn’t be having yourself a war. If they blow up the World Trade Center, the worst that can happen is we’ll (maybe after 10 years) assassinate a leader and then “rehabilitate” the country (c’mon folks, you really should grow corn not poppies, please be nice) ... who would be AFRAID of that? War, the way “we” do it is no longer a DETERRENT.
Unfortunately there is no track record of attacking a nation that has nuclear weapons and/or capability. The list includes such 'luminaries' as North Korea and Iran. That track record gives nations like Pakistan (which also has a strong relationship with China that further makes them feel they have a hairy chest) the gonads to think they can stand up to Uncle Sam. It may be an incorrect belief on their part, but it is based on direct observation. It is the same reason why Ahmadenijad is really pushing for Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons. Tehran has realized that Baghdad got bombed and Saddam toasted, yet Pyongyang is far worse (not just in terms of its standing in the 'Axis of Evil,' but also in terms of DIRECT nuclear proliferation through the sale of intermediate ballistic missiles, acts of terror against South Korea, and economic attack on the US eocnomy through the creation of so called 'super Dollars' that are virtually indistiguishable from the real mccoy) ...yet for all its evil efforts it gets money and fuel oil from the West! Hence, Ahmadenijad pushes Iran to get nuclear weapons. He may be mad, but he is not stupid.
Look at Pakistan - leading nation in the globe in terms of Islamic jihadism with their many Madrassas, the premier DIRECT proliferator of nuclear technology (unlike the North Koreans and their missile tech, the Pakistanis via the AQ Khan network were dealing in actual nuclear technology), directly supporting terrorist groups and terrorism against India and the West ...and for all their evil actions (just like North Korea), their 'just reward' is several billion Dollars every year from American taxpayers.
Hence my next question ...if you were the leader of some despotic nation somewhere in the Greater Middle East, Eastern Europe, Latin America or Africa, why would you NOT opt for nuclear weapons technology if you thought that your evil ways may lead to the US/NATO etc playing SWAT with you? I am not surprised people like Ahmadenijad would push for such technology ...one only need look at what happened to Baghdad and is happening to Tripoli, and what is happening to Islamabad and Pyongyang. If one option leads to your sons (and possibly you) dying, and the other option leads to receiving billions of US$ every year, what is the rational decision? People act all shocked when things occur, yet (just like in most game theory scenarios and stratagems) it is easy to see what the end-game will be. As the Bible says, as you sow so shall you reap. If you finance Mujahadeen to fight against the Soviets for their land and god, once the Soviets are done they will move to the next 'offendor' of their land and god. If you give people in poor income areas free aid if they do not work, do you think they will decide to find work? If you decide not to fuel your vehicle and take a long drive, do you think it will not run out of gas? If you do not raise your child well, would you be surprised if meth and the neighborhood truants take over? Cause and effect.
Iraq. Tick. Afghanistan. Tick. Somalia. Tick. Grenada. Tick. Panama. Tick. Bosnia. Tick.
Iran. Naaah! Pakistan. Naaah!
Inference: Nuclear weapons not only prevent you from attack (even when you do FAR WORSE things than other recipients of an @$$ kicking), but they ALSO end up providing you with billions of Dollars of direct and indirect assistance.
Cause and effect.
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.