| Author | Message | ||
     tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5741 Registered: 5-2001 |
This sounds really bad. Reports are Pakistan, our "key ally in the war on terror" in the words of GW Bush, has signed the equivalent of a peace treaty with the Taliban. It promises Osama Bin Laden "will not face capture in Pakistan if he agrees to lead a "peaceful life," according to Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan via ABC News. If true, this is the the biggest failure yet from the failure and f***up GOP. What the hell are they doing, besides clearing brush? | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5742 Registered: 5-2001 |
video here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/05/breaking-haven-for-peace-pakistan-just- loves-the-taliban/ The Taliban has a new sanctuary, within Pakistan. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12581 Registered: 5-2001 |
NATO has apparently been doing a great job of kicking Taliban ••• in Southern Afghanistan. I suspect this is a result of that. Pakistan has always been playing both ends against the middle. It will be interesting to see if the Taliban uses Pakistan as a safe haven for raids into Afghanistan. I rather suspect they will. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5744 Registered: 5-2001 |
Now they're issuing denials: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/pakistan_denies.html Partial denials, the treaty is a fact; and the safe haven for Bin Laden is attributed to a "gross misquotation," which you can judge for yourself from the transcript supplied in the link above. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 2084 Registered: 10-2004  |
 Anyone who had a friend or relative die, be injured, be anyway involved in the attacks of 9/11, anyone who has a relative, friend or friend of the family go to Iraq or Afghanistan in the belief that we are fighting against the people that attacked us should be extremely angry about this. Any American who wants justice should be extremely angry about this. Every American should be extremely angry about this. | ||
| Twokitties Citizen Username: Twokitties Post Number: 514 Registered: 8-2004 |
Bad news indeed. So long Osama. Pakistan Lets Tribal Chiefs Keep Control Along Border By ISMAIL KHAN and CARLOTTA GALL Published: September 6, 2006 PESHAWAR, Pakistan, Sept. 5 — The central government and tribal elders signed a peace agreement on Tuesday that will allow militants to operate freely in one of Pakistan’s most restive border areas in return for a pledge to halt attacks and infiltration into Afghanistan. Skip to next paragraph The New York Times Pakistan signed a pact on Tuesday with tribal leaders in Miram Shah. The Reach of War Go to Complete Coverage » The deal is widely viewed as a face-saving retreat for the Pakistani Army, which has taken a heavy battering at the hands of the mountain tribesmen and militants, who are allied with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. But the government may have in effect ceded the militants a sanctuary in the area, called North Waziristan. In one of the most obvious capitulations since it began its campaign to rout foreign fighters from the area, the government said foreigners would be allowed to stay if they respected the law and the peace agreement. Osama bin Laden and other leaders of Al Qaeda are believed to be among the foreigners who have taken refuge in the area. | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 1898 Registered: 9-2004  |
Whatever happened to… "We'll stay the course?"  This is NOT good news on the eve of the 5th Anniversary of 9/11. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave  Post Number: 10727 Registered: 4-1997  |
Sounds like a planted story. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5745 Registered: 5-2001 |
by whom, for what? | ||
| Cryberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7835 Registered: 10-2001 |
Pakistan says Bin Laden will be captured if caught in Pakistan. This deal is more about protecting Pakistanis from terrorist strikes. This is not good news for libs. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12588 Registered: 5-2001 |
Straw, is that what the talking points says today? It is not good news for America. Pakistan has basically declared that they will take a see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil approach to radicals in the province that borders Afghanistan. The point is that Pakistan will no longer actively hunt Bin Laden. They have lost to many troops trying. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 2076 Registered: 7-2004  |
So now we see that Pakistan will harbor terrorists and provide a safe haven. Guess we should expect Bush to invade Pakistan any day now, based on our commander's past rhetoric. | ||
| Cryberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7836 Registered: 10-2001 |
Of course, you'd vote to do that before you'd vote against doing that. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 2077 Registered: 7-2004 |
Hey, an original, humorous line. Mazel tov. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5746 Registered: 5-2001 |
Your spin reeks of desperation. Pakistan, our purported ally in the region, has made a separate peace with our enemy the Taliban. Bin Laden is effectively a free man in that part of the world and what are we going to do about it? Anyway, "Bin Laden will be captured if caught in Pakistan" is a non-statement if you think about it. Duh. He'll be caught if he's captured, too. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 2078 Registered: 7-2004 |
"Bin Laden is effectively a free man in that part of the world and what are we going to do about it?" Nothing, just like we have been doing. Bush doesn't want to capture or kill Bin Laden. It'd be bad for the republicans long term. They'd have to find another boogeyman they can use to scare the simpleminded Southern folk. | ||
| Joe Citizen Username: Gonets Post Number: 1342 Registered: 2-2004 |
Straw’s right. Pakistan turning a blind eye to the presence of the Taliban in their own country is bad news for libs-the libs living in Taliban controlled areas. The fact that Pakistan is now giving the Taliban a breather is bad news for all Americans. Only morons believe otherwise. Musharif’s appeasement of the terrorists is an indication of his vulnerability among his own people. He’s escaped assassination twice during his reign. He probably feels his luck is running out. Would have been nice if we had sufficient forces in Afghanistan to finish the job at Tora Bora, but the Bush administration had other priorities. We can’t very well mount a force to attack the Taliban in Pakistan, and now it’s clear that Pakistan won’t do it. So we’ll just have to wait and see how things shake out in Pakistan. Not a good situation. By the way with specific regard to the peace agreement, this agreement is really only good for the Taliban. By agreeing to stop crossing the border into Afghanistan, they agreed to not attempt something that’s more or less impossible in the coming winter months anyway. In that part of the world it’s routine for combatants to call some sort of cease fire as winter approaches. It builds up good will among morons and gives the combatants a chance to lick their wounds and rearm. Pakistan’s essentially giving them a get out of Tora Bora free card. No surprise cons like Straw see this as a good thing. They’re not much on taking the fight to the enemy. | ||
| Cryberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7837 Registered: 10-2001 |
As usual Joe is wrong.. | ||
| Joe Citizen Username: Gonets Post Number: 1343 Registered: 2-2004 |
As usual Straw has nothing of substance to offer. But you really can't expect much from someone who thinks network news is a good source of information. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5749 Registered: 5-2001 |
We're really getting into serious "up is down, and down is up" territory here. What could possibly be the motivation for someone to say that this is good for America? | ||
| Cryberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7839 Registered: 10-2001 |
No one said this was good for America. It's good for Pakistan and it's not good news for libs.. Big difference. Can't demand that Pakistan continue battling militants on its borders. Can't do it and the bottom line is Bin Laden is still a wanted man in Pakistan. Would I prefer Pakistan not reach such a deal?..Sure, but I certainly understand the situation.. I guess libs would prefer that Pakistan suffer civil war which as we all know has become the rallying cry for the libs regarding Iraq. Libs.. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 2092 Registered: 10-2004 |
STRAWBERRY your message is false and disgusting. - from toms link to crooks and liars originating at ABC news
So Bin Laden is not still a wanted man in Pakistan. He is a free man to roam the hills and valleys of the region he is in. In Pakistan. As for the disgusting part - Bin Laden killed 3000 of us. Libs and cons, democrats and republicans. Many volunteered and went to Afghanistan to find and kill bin Laden. Many were killed attempting to do it. As of today 2889 US soldiers have been killed for no good reason in Iraq. That makes about 6000 of us that have died due to this swine. And you UNDERSTAND the situation. | ||
| Cryberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7840 Registered: 10-2001 |
The ABC report isn't accurate. ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Pakistan's prime minister has disputed a news report that said Osama bin Laden would not face capture if he agreed to lead a "peaceful life." Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz told CNN on Wednesday that "anybody who is wanted or is a terrorist or has committed acts of terror anywhere in the world and is wanted, there is no immunity for such people." And, Aziz added, that "this notion that anybody who has a record as a terrorist will get safe haven -- we would not even think of doing that." The detail about the al Qaeda leader came in an ABC news report about Tuesday's signing of a peace agreement between pro-Taliban tribal leaders and the government, a pact designed to end violence in the restive northern Waziristan region along the Pakistan-Afghan border. ABC quoted Pakistani officials as saying that bin Laden would not be subject to capture in Pakistan, if he agreed to lead a "peaceful life." He "would not be taken into custody ... as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen," the network quoted Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan as saying. While Aziz expressed incredulity at the idea that bin Laden would be immune from capture, he called the agreement with tribal leaders "very wise." Bin Laden is thought to be hunkering down somewhere along the rugged border region. "We are at peace with this agreement," said Aziz. Under the deal, Pakistani troops would halt its military campaign and militants would halt attacks on Pakistani forces in northern Waziristan and stop cross-border raids into Afghanistan targeting U.S. and Afghan troops. The agreement also envisions that foreigners living in northern Waziristan would be asked to leave Pakistan, but those who cannot leave could live peacefully, respecting the law of the land and the agreement. The Pakistani Foreign Ministry disputed "a statement attributed to the spokesperson of the president by ABC News that Osama bin Laden will not face capture in Pakistan if he agrees to lead a 'peaceful life.' " "The spokesperson said that this is a gross misreporting. The president's spokesperson, Major General Shaukat Sultan, was speaking of the peace agreement signed on the 5th September 2006 with the tribal leaders in north Waziristan. "In response to a question, Major General Shaukat Sultan stated that foreigners settled in the area would be allowed to stay there on the condition that they live peacefully and abide by law. At no stage during the conversation he said that this was applicable to Osama Bin Laden. " In Washington, Pakistani Ambassador to the U.S. Mahmud Ali Durrani underscored Aziz's position, saying Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan had been "grossly misquoted in a section of U.S. media today." "Pakistan is on the hunt for Osama bin Laden and his associates. If he is in Pakistan, today or any time later, he will be taken into custody and brought to justice. No amnesty has been granted to Osama bin Laden." In Kabul on Wednesday, Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf was meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai to discuss the war on terror, and security cooperation as the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks approaches. Both countries have been critical of each other for not doing enough to capture militants. | ||
| Joe Citizen Username: Gonets Post Number: 1344 Registered: 2-2004 |
Fighting an invading force (in this case the Taliban) is not civil war. Please get a clue and stop posting until you have one. | ||
| Cryberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7841 Registered: 10-2001 |
oh, but fighting an invading Al Qaeda in Iraq is civil war?? holy hypocritical.. libs (and Joe)  | ||
| Joe Citizen Username: Gonets Post Number: 1345 Registered: 2-2004 |
You make no sense. Please find a clue. Just one at least that's a starting point. | ||
| Cryberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7842 Registered: 10-2001 |
Good point Joe. I should get a clue and stop trying to debate those such as yourself who fail to bring anything of substance to the table. | ||
| Joe Citizen Username: Gonets Post Number: 1346 Registered: 2-2004 |
Physician heal thyself. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5750 Registered: 5-2001 |
Good for Pakistan? Maybe. But I'm not a citizen of Pakistan. The Soviets signing a separate peace accord with the central powers was good for the USSR in 1917, too. But if I remember my history correctly, it was a thorough betrayal of the allies. The residual bad blood lasted right through 1991. Oh, and enough already with the "bad for libs" schtick. If Barney Frank were elected President and Charlie Rangell Speaker of the House, you'd say it was bad for libs. It's like Southerner's "I love this," a reflex action kind of like how my dog kicks her leg when I scratch her belly. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 2083 Registered: 7-2004 |
“America makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror, and those that harbor and support them, because they’re equally guilty of murder.” - GW Bush, Sept. 5, 2006 |
