What Pakistan Knew About Bin Laden(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
What Pakistan Knew About Bin Laden
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/magazine/what-pakistan-knew-about-bin-laden.html
12 comments
What does this have to do with anything? The US does not bankroll the ISI. The US is in an undeclared war with the ISI.
My guess is 100% of HN readers know about the US's role in bankrolling the Afghan insurgency, using a terrible Pakastani dictator as a vector. There are no good guys in that story: the Soviet occupation was horrifically violent and repressive, and there was never any chance that the Afghani warlords who replaced them would form a just and stable government. The state of Pakistan is one of the most paranoid and aggressive in the world, owing to a longstanding and seemingly permanent conflict between their giant neighbor to the east; not least because the state of Pakistan was in part a reaction to genocidal violence against Muslim Indians.
There are no good guys in the history of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Now what?
Prior to World War 2, the US forcibly annexed territory and orchestrated the mass murder of Native Americans. How does this factor into your consideration of Nazi Germany?
If you're looking for good guys in any of these stories, you're thinking wrong.
My guess is 100% of HN readers know about the US's role in bankrolling the Afghan insurgency, using a terrible Pakastani dictator as a vector. There are no good guys in that story: the Soviet occupation was horrifically violent and repressive, and there was never any chance that the Afghani warlords who replaced them would form a just and stable government. The state of Pakistan is one of the most paranoid and aggressive in the world, owing to a longstanding and seemingly permanent conflict between their giant neighbor to the east; not least because the state of Pakistan was in part a reaction to genocidal violence against Muslim Indians.
There are no good guys in the history of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Now what?
Prior to World War 2, the US forcibly annexed territory and orchestrated the mass murder of Native Americans. How does this factor into your consideration of Nazi Germany?
If you're looking for good guys in any of these stories, you're thinking wrong.
> not least because the state of Pakistan was in part a reaction to genocidal violence against Muslim Indians.
Are you actually naive or you are just playing this? Do you even have iota of an idea of India, Muslims, Pakistan, genocide or anything about this subcontinent?
I have seen you comment here on almost all the topics and your comment is generally a "scramble" of things without a backup, without a flow, without any intellectual merit, you just say things. But that's mostly about technology but this time you ventured into a field which you seem to have mastered minutes before writing this comment.
Not only that, you embed history in it and make it worse. I wanted to respond to your comment instead of this rant but this one particular statement just stuck out and how do I respond to this factually absurd statement. I've lived here for 28 years. I am a native with friends (and distant family) on both sides of the border so I can safely say that there really aren't many comments that I have found as meaningless on HN as yours, well in a negative way.
Are you actually naive or you are just playing this? Do you even have iota of an idea of India, Muslims, Pakistan, genocide or anything about this subcontinent?
I have seen you comment here on almost all the topics and your comment is generally a "scramble" of things without a backup, without a flow, without any intellectual merit, you just say things. But that's mostly about technology but this time you ventured into a field which you seem to have mastered minutes before writing this comment.
Not only that, you embed history in it and make it worse. I wanted to respond to your comment instead of this rant but this one particular statement just stuck out and how do I respond to this factually absurd statement. I've lived here for 28 years. I am a native with friends (and distant family) on both sides of the border so I can safely say that there really aren't many comments that I have found as meaningless on HN as yours, well in a negative way.
Please, Pakistan is warlike and aggressive because they have been manipulated by the US into believing they can take on India (with US support).
> genocidal violence against Muslim Indians.
What's this about? Partition killed as many Hindus and Sikhs as Muslims and pre-Independence India had little communal violence that wasn't explicitly fomented by the British in order to serve their own ends.
If you're so well read in south asian history, you should also know that there are more muslims in India than in Pakistan and that pretty much none of them would like to switch places with their Pakistani siblings.
> genocidal violence against Muslim Indians.
What's this about? Partition killed as many Hindus and Sikhs as Muslims and pre-Independence India had little communal violence that wasn't explicitly fomented by the British in order to serve their own ends.
If you're so well read in south asian history, you should also know that there are more muslims in India than in Pakistan and that pretty much none of them would like to switch places with their Pakistani siblings.
You may want to look in to what happened when Hyderabad was annexed to India in 1948.
Are you referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Polo
"After a stalemate in negotiations between the Nizam and India, mass killing and rape of the Hindu population by Razakars, and wary of a hostile independent state in the centre of India, Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Patel decided to annex the state of Hyderabad."
Wow, good thing that genocidal Nizam was forcibly put down...
"After a stalemate in negotiations between the Nizam and India, mass killing and rape of the Hindu population by Razakars, and wary of a hostile independent state in the centre of India, Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Patel decided to annex the state of Hyderabad."
Wow, good thing that genocidal Nizam was forcibly put down...
Er, how about the section of the article titled "Aftermath"
"After having received information that widespread communal violence against Muslims in reprisal for previous atrocities against Hindus,[17] Prime Minister Nehru sent congressman Pandit Sunderlal and a mixed-faith team to investigate. Reporting back the team estimated that between 27,000 and 40,000 civilians have died and that some members of the Indian army and police force participated in violent acts.[18]" I wouldn't call that a minor overreaction. My grandfather didn't leave Gulbarga in 1948 because he was sick of the climate.
The article also fails to mention that Nehru's agent to Hyderabad was the incredibly communal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._M._Munshi
"After having received information that widespread communal violence against Muslims in reprisal for previous atrocities against Hindus,[17] Prime Minister Nehru sent congressman Pandit Sunderlal and a mixed-faith team to investigate. Reporting back the team estimated that between 27,000 and 40,000 civilians have died and that some members of the Indian army and police force participated in violent acts.[18]" I wouldn't call that a minor overreaction. My grandfather didn't leave Gulbarga in 1948 because he was sick of the climate.
The article also fails to mention that Nehru's agent to Hyderabad was the incredibly communal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._M._Munshi
From the cited BBC article: "The investigation team also reported, however, that in many other instances the Indian Army had behaved well and protected Muslims.
The backlash was said to have been in response to many years of intimidation and violence against Hindus by the Razakars."
It's clear we each have our biases, and this discussion could go on.
I only brought up the wikipedia article in the first place to show that violence against Muslims resulting from the annex of Hyderabad wasn't unprovoked. Both sides were wrong in some of their actions though.
The backlash was said to have been in response to many years of intimidation and violence against Hindus by the Razakars."
It's clear we each have our biases, and this discussion could go on.
I only brought up the wikipedia article in the first place to show that violence against Muslims resulting from the annex of Hyderabad wasn't unprovoked. Both sides were wrong in some of their actions though.
Sorry, I was wrong. The government of Pakistan are the good guys.
Umm yes you are. The genocidal violence was not a one sided affair. Numerous sources say that it was instigated by the Muslim League to further their case for a separate nation.
In any case, the 15 odd percent Muslims in India are proof enough that the word genocidal is not appropriate here.
In any case, the 15 odd percent Muslims in India are proof enough that the word genocidal is not appropriate here.
You can call it whatever you want. No part of my point hinges on me litigating the distinction you're trying to make.
I'm a bit lost. What genocidal violence was it, that caused the formation of the state of Pakistan?
The US funds or gives aid to the Pakistani State. The Pakistani state diverts its own money to fund the ISI. So the US does bankroll ISI.
Pakistan is not really one of the most paranoid and aggressive in the world. And that is coming from an Indian here. It is much more civilized than many nations and has much of the institutions that make a modern nation. Just that the military and religious extremism( which incidentally was helped along the way by a desperate general who wanted to hold on to power) has destroyed the idea of the state.
The longstanding conflict with us, is fueled by the United States, who in their quest to have an ally in the region against perceived Russian expansion to the Persian Gulf supported successive military regimes against a presumed 'communist' but democratic India. The United States, replaced a reformist and yes a repressive government, with the most regressive government anywhere in the world in Afghanistan in 1991. And didn't care about it till 9/11. The hindsight of history tells us that maybe communist totalitarianism is what the country needed to break hundreds of years of warlordism.
Maybe what US does on the whole balances out their excesses here. Maybe stopping the spread of communism and totalitarianism required this. But looking at it at a theatre level, US policy in the region has been short sighted and should have been directed at promoting democracy in Pakistan. Not in helping the military. Along with being short sighted it has also been hypocritical. And that is what makes it sad.
Pakistan is not really one of the most paranoid and aggressive in the world. And that is coming from an Indian here. It is much more civilized than many nations and has much of the institutions that make a modern nation. Just that the military and religious extremism( which incidentally was helped along the way by a desperate general who wanted to hold on to power) has destroyed the idea of the state.
The longstanding conflict with us, is fueled by the United States, who in their quest to have an ally in the region against perceived Russian expansion to the Persian Gulf supported successive military regimes against a presumed 'communist' but democratic India. The United States, replaced a reformist and yes a repressive government, with the most regressive government anywhere in the world in Afghanistan in 1991. And didn't care about it till 9/11. The hindsight of history tells us that maybe communist totalitarianism is what the country needed to break hundreds of years of warlordism.
Maybe what US does on the whole balances out their excesses here. Maybe stopping the spread of communism and totalitarianism required this. But looking at it at a theatre level, US policy in the region has been short sighted and should have been directed at promoting democracy in Pakistan. Not in helping the military. Along with being short sighted it has also been hypocritical. And that is what makes it sad.
Did you just refer to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan as a reform movement?
>It is much more civilized than many nations and has much of the institutions that make a modern nation. Just that the military and religious extremism
Given that the Pakistani military and ISI control so much of Pakistan's government, is this a worthwhile distinction?
Given that the Pakistani military and ISI control so much of Pakistan's government, is this a worthwhile distinction?
India has led the genocide in Kashmir of over 100,000 kashmiris, Mr Venkatesh, Can India even be regarded as a civilized?
There's a satirical Hindi movie called Tere Bin Laden [1] about a bunch of bumbling journalists who find a Bin Laden lookalike and then attempt to trick the US into thinking he's the real Bin Laden.
I watched the movie after Bin Laden was killed and while it's reasonably funny, the part that I found hilarious is this sentence one of the protagonists utters when they run into the lookalike for the first time. In Hindi/Urdu it goes, "Gore saale isko Tora Bora mein dhoond rahe hain aur yeh saala yahan Lahore mein murgi paal raha hai." Translation: "So these fucking americans are looking for him in Tora Bora but who'd have guessed this fucker is raising chicken in Lahore?!" Note the movie came out before he was captured and I found it hilarious that a random Bollywood storyline turned out be the best guess about where Bin Laden was actually hiding.
EDIT: More seriously though, there's nothing surprising here. US agencies funded Islamic extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan for decades because it suited their geopolitical interests. They were happy to turn a blind eye to the violence caused by Islamic militancy in Kashmir in the 90s. It's only when the Frankensteinian monster got out of hand and turned on the US itself that they started paying attention. But by then damage was already done.
[1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1629391/
I watched the movie after Bin Laden was killed and while it's reasonably funny, the part that I found hilarious is this sentence one of the protagonists utters when they run into the lookalike for the first time. In Hindi/Urdu it goes, "Gore saale isko Tora Bora mein dhoond rahe hain aur yeh saala yahan Lahore mein murgi paal raha hai." Translation: "So these fucking americans are looking for him in Tora Bora but who'd have guessed this fucker is raising chicken in Lahore?!" Note the movie came out before he was captured and I found it hilarious that a random Bollywood storyline turned out be the best guess about where Bin Laden was actually hiding.
EDIT: More seriously though, there's nothing surprising here. US agencies funded Islamic extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan for decades because it suited their geopolitical interests. They were happy to turn a blind eye to the violence caused by Islamic militancy in Kashmir in the 90s. It's only when the Frankensteinian monster got out of hand and turned on the US itself that they started paying attention. But by then damage was already done.
[1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1629391/
TL:DR allegations that ISI (Pakistani intelligence service) was heavily supporting extremist Taliban up to at least 2007.
It is implied ISI lost control of at least part of the movement in 2007.
"After years of nurturing jihadists to fight its proxy wars, Pakistan was now experiencing the repercussions. “We could not control them,” a former senior intelligence official told a colleague and me six months after the Red Mosque siege."
It is possible significant portion of ISI is still compromised:
"People knew that the house was strange, and one local rumor had it that it was a place where wounded Taliban from Waziristan recuperated. I was told this by Musharraf’s former civilian intelligence chief, who had himself been accused of having a hand in hiding Bin Laden in Abbottabad. He denied any involvement, but he did not absolve local intelligence agents, who would have checked the house."
It is implied ISI lost control of at least part of the movement in 2007.
"After years of nurturing jihadists to fight its proxy wars, Pakistan was now experiencing the repercussions. “We could not control them,” a former senior intelligence official told a colleague and me six months after the Red Mosque siege."
It is possible significant portion of ISI is still compromised:
"People knew that the house was strange, and one local rumor had it that it was a place where wounded Taliban from Waziristan recuperated. I was told this by Musharraf’s former civilian intelligence chief, who had himself been accused of having a hand in hiding Bin Laden in Abbottabad. He denied any involvement, but he did not absolve local intelligence agents, who would have checked the house."
As a Pakistani I find this report alarming. However I also believe that the situation, especially the army's view of the Taliban, in particular groups under the TTP, has drastically changed. The TTP's brazen attacks on the Pakistani military in recent months have prompted the army to respond with force. In particular, the army actually is waiting for the govt's green light to clean up North Waziristan. It recently launched air strikes [1] on Taliban positions, and until a couple of weeks ago a full scale military operation similar to the a successful one conducted in Swat in 2009 seemed imminent.
Ironically though the Sharif administration is not entirely in favour of an operation. Some of the complexities include the fact that Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is governed by PTI which disagrees with a military operation entirely.
Currently there is a shaky ceasefire between the govt and the TTP. However a new splinter group called Aharar-ul-Hind, forked off from the TTP and carried out a daring attack on a court in Islamabad a few days back [2].
Interestingly enough, the new TTP chief Maulana Fazlullah is supposedly based in Afghanistan, and there is a worrying, ironic prospect of TTP raids from Afghanistan into Pakistan after NATO withdrawal.
1. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/25/world/asia/pakistan-airstr... 2. http://www.geo.tv/article-139849-TTP-splinter-faction-Ahrar-...
Ironically though the Sharif administration is not entirely in favour of an operation. Some of the complexities include the fact that Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is governed by PTI which disagrees with a military operation entirely.
Currently there is a shaky ceasefire between the govt and the TTP. However a new splinter group called Aharar-ul-Hind, forked off from the TTP and carried out a daring attack on a court in Islamabad a few days back [2].
Interestingly enough, the new TTP chief Maulana Fazlullah is supposedly based in Afghanistan, and there is a worrying, ironic prospect of TTP raids from Afghanistan into Pakistan after NATO withdrawal.
1. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/25/world/asia/pakistan-airstr... 2. http://www.geo.tv/article-139849-TTP-splinter-faction-Ahrar-...
> However I also believe that the situation, especially the army's view of the Taliban, in particular groups under the TTP, has drastically changed.
That's possible, but it's pretty clear that ISI is a state within the state. As long as it isn't broken up and brought under civilian control, it is impossible to ensure it does not continue supporting these Talibans it deems acceptable. The testimony of the unnamed former intelligence official in the article speaks volume about it: "In 2007, a former senior intelligence official who worked on tracking members of Al Qaeda after Sept. 11 told me that while one part of the ISI was engaged in hunting down militants, another part continued to work with them." As long as they're willing to fund LeT actions like the Mumbai bombings, it's unlikely they will care that Pakistanis also become victims of terrorism.
That's possible, but it's pretty clear that ISI is a state within the state. As long as it isn't broken up and brought under civilian control, it is impossible to ensure it does not continue supporting these Talibans it deems acceptable. The testimony of the unnamed former intelligence official in the article speaks volume about it: "In 2007, a former senior intelligence official who worked on tracking members of Al Qaeda after Sept. 11 told me that while one part of the ISI was engaged in hunting down militants, another part continued to work with them." As long as they're willing to fund LeT actions like the Mumbai bombings, it's unlikely they will care that Pakistanis also become victims of terrorism.
Agree with : This is perhaps an unpopular opinion, but to pull out now is, undeniably, to leave with the job only half-done
It amazes me to think about how can people be so radically different, based on their upbringing. Sometimes I give up thinking and accept the fact that what seems correct & logical to you may be absolute nonsense in another part of the world. Being born in the right place is a BIG privilege. It's something you can't simply appreciate by not being there physically.
It amazes me to think about how can people be so radically different, based on their upbringing. Sometimes I give up thinking and accept the fact that what seems correct & logical to you may be absolute nonsense in another part of the world. Being born in the right place is a BIG privilege. It's something you can't simply appreciate by not being there physically.
This is a fascinating and well-written account, but it's off-topic for HN and will produce no useful discussion. I flagged it as soon as I saw it, and hopefully you will too.
Mainstream media with its uncorroborated sources, strategic, timed, unsubstantiated and anonymous "leaks", often serving the interests of lobby groups policy makers, think tanks and intelligence agencies is hard to be believed. Even if the writer as good at the art of writing.
Would you care to point out some of the inconsistencies/falsehoods in the article?
[deleted]
Jason Burke's "The 9/11 Wars" has an in-depth analysis of this very issue, recommended read.
In a democratic society free from fear of surveillance the real conversation would be: "what the USA doesn't yet know about Bin Laden" [1]
[1] http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_050503_bombs.ht...
[1] http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_050503_bombs.ht...
What do crazy 9/11 conspiracy theories have to do with any of this?
And here lies the problem
Sadly, I assume you're referring to my reply, rather than your inability to detect obvious nonsense.
Here's just one minor hint out of many serious problems with that article: try to look up "military response code 7610-4J".
Here's just one minor hint out of many serious problems with that article: try to look up "military response code 7610-4J".
Not HN material: Political.
Link without paywall?
Also, speaking of the boogeyman of Osama bin Laden, Pakistan never could have afforded to back bin Laden and the nascent Taliban and Al Qaeda. It's the US who bankrolled the mujahideen's war against Afghanistan's PDPA government, and sent billions of dollars to flow through ISI's hands into the madrassas in an attempt to oust the secular PDPA government from Afghanistan.
Nothing has changed either. The US government still backs, as it has always backed, governments like Saudi Arabia, a country where women can't drive, and opposed secular, vaguely pan-Arab socialist Nasserite governments like Libya, Iraq and Syria.
It's a strange news article that points fingers at the people running Pakistan, as if they could successfully defy the United States. They're exactly who the US wants in there, to oppose the PPP, cause friction with India etc.
It's strange how Americans don't know that via the ISI the U.S. armed and bankrolled Osama bin Laden to help overthrow Afghanistan's secular government. Then I guess Americans were shocked to learn that bin Laden didn't appreciate the US militarily occupying his country for a decade. One well planned suicide mission solved that problem for him, when 9/11 happened, Bush withdrew troops from Saudi Arabia almost as fast as Reagan pulled troops out of Lebanon.