Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: CIA chief: Al-Qaida behind Bhutto slaying

  1. #1
    ForceRecon79
    Guest

    CIA chief: Al-Qaida behind Bhutto slaying

    CIA chief: Al-Qaida behind Bhutto slaying

    Echoing Musharraf, Hayden says Al-Qaida, militants behind ex-PM’s death
    By Joby Warrick

    The Washington Post

    updated 10:57 p.m. MT, Thurs., Jan. 17, 2008
    The CIA has concluded that members of al-Qaeda and allies of Pakistani tribal leader Baitullah Mehsud were responsible for last month's assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, and that they also stand behind a new wave of violence threatening that country's stability, the agency's director, Michael V. Hayden, said in an interview.

    Offering the most definitive public assessment by a U.S. intelligence official, Hayden said Bhutto was killed by fighters allied with Mehsud, a tribal leader in northwestern Pakistan, with support from al-Qaeda's terrorist network. That view mirrors the Pakistani government's assertions.

    The same alliance between local and international terrorists poses a grave risk to the government of President Pervez Musharraf, a close U.S. ally in the fight against terrorism, Hayden said in 45-minute interview with The Washington Post. "What you see is, I think, a change in the character of what's going on there," he said. "You've got this nexus now that probably was always there in latency but is now active: a nexus between al-Qaeda and various extremist and separatist groups."

    Hayden added, "It is clear that their intention is to continue to try to do harm to the Pakistani state as it currently exists."

    Days after Bhutto's Dec. 27 assassination in the city of Rawalpindi, Pakistani officials released intercepted communications between Mehsud and his supporters in which the tribal leader praised the killing and, according to the officials, appeared to take credit for it. Pakistani and U.S. officials have declined to comment on the origin of that intercept, but the administration has until now been cautious about publicly embracing the Pakistani assessment.

    Widespread suspicion of Musharraf
    Many Pakistanis have voiced suspicions that Musharraf's government played a role in Bhutto's assassination, and Bhutto's family has alleged a wide conspiracy involving government officials. Hayden declined to discuss the intelligence behind the CIA's assessment, which is at odds with that view and supports Musharraf's assertions.

    "This was done by that network around Baitullah Mehsud. We have no reason to question that," Hayden said. He described the killing as "part of an organized campaign" that has included suicide bombings and other attacks on Pakistani leaders.

    Some administration officials outside the agency who deal with Pakistani issues were less conclusive, with one calling the assertion "a very good assumption."

    One of the officials said there was no "incontrovertible" evidence to prove or rebut the assessment.


    Al-Qaida rebuilding in region
    Hayden made his statement shortly before a series of attacks occurred this week on Pakistani political figures and army units. Pakistani officials have blamed them on Mehsud's forces and other militants. On Wednesday, a group of several hundred insurgents overran a military outpost in the province of South Waziristan, killing 22 government paramilitary troops. The daring daylight raid was carried out by rebels loyal to Mehsud, Pakistani authorities said.

    For more than a year, U.S. officials have been nervously watching as al-Qaeda rebuilt its infrastructure in the rugged tribal regions along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, often with the help of local sympathizers.

    In recent months, U.S. intelligence officials have said, the relationship between al-Qaeda and local insurgents has been strengthened by a common antipathy toward the pro-Western Musharraf government. The groups now share resources and training facilities and sometimes even plan attacks together, they said.

    "We've always viewed that to be an ultimate danger to the United States," Hayden said, "but now it appears that it is a serious base of danger to the current well-being of Pakistan."

    Policy hasn't changed, Hayden says
    Hayden's anxieties about Pakistan's stability are echoed by other U.S. officials who have visited Pakistan since Bhutto's assassination. White House, intelligence and Defense Department officials have held a series of meetings to discuss U.S. options in the event that the current crisis deepens, including the possibility of covert action involving Special Forces.

    Hayden declined to comment on the policy meetings but said that the CIA already was heavily engaged in the region and has not shifted its officers or changed its operations significantly since the crisis began.

    "The Afghan-Pakistan border region has been an area of focus for this agency since about 11 o'clock in the morning of September 11, [2001], and I really mean this," Hayden said. "We haven't done a whole lot of retooling there in the last one week, one month, three months, six months and so on. This has been up there among our very highest priorities."

    Hayden said that the United States has "not had a better partner in the war on terrorism than the Pakistanis." The turmoil of the past few weeks has only deepened that cooperation, he said, by highlighting "what are now even more clearly mutual and common interests."

    Hayden also acknowledged the difficulties -- diplomatic and practical -- involved in helping combat extremism in a country divided by ethnic, religious and cultural allegiances. "This looks simpler the further away you get from it," he said. "And the closer you get to it, geography, history, culture all begin to intertwine and make it more complex."

    Regarding the public controversy over the CIA's harsh interrogation of detainees at secret prisons, Hayden reiterated previous agency statements that lives were saved and attacks were prevented as a result of those interrogations.

    He said he does not support proposals, put forward by some lawmakers in recent weeks, to require the CIA to abide by the Army Field Manual in conducting interrogations. The manual, adopted by the Defense Department, prohibits the use of many aggressive methods, including a simulated-drowning technique known as waterboarding.

    "I would offer my professional judgment that that will make us less capable in gaining the information we need," he said.

  2. #2
    andak01
    Guest
    And yet, we have a couple of posters here who celebrate her death. Makes me wonder what side they are on.

  3. #3
    ShimonG
    Guest
    Lets see.

    The paki govt, most likely musharraf himself bumped her off and blames the taliban/al qaeda.

    (1) the attack took place in rawalpindi, a garrison town dominated by the military and its ISI intelligence.
    (2) all forensic evidence was literally washed out using water hoses.
    (3) the paki govt says that she bumped her head on the roof of her car. that caused her death.
    (4) then later when incontrovertible evidence surfaces of shots fired, changes its story and says that "the cause of death is not important."
    (5) musharraf did not want either her or nawaz sharif back in pakistan
    (6) musharraf has gone on record stating that he believes in "unity of command". he is not the one to share power, EVER
    (7) bhutto, when out of pakistan, agrees to "share" power. comes back to pakistan, reneges on her agreement with musharraf brokered by the US
    (8) musharraf has more reason to bump her off than anyone else. he has backing from his saudi funders who dont wanna woman there.

    The US is still backing musharraf under the illusion that apres moi, deluge. There is NO DECENT LEADER in all of pakistan. IT IS THE MOST JEHADIZED country in the world. They are all scum.

    The US may well know for certain that musharraf bumped off Bhutto but can do squat about it.

    Every single person, WITH A NON-VESTED interest in pakistan has condemned Bhutto as a corrupt person who sponsored jehadi elements against india, CREATED the taliban with her ISI general Naseerullah Babar, funded the taliban takeover of a'stan, probably at the behest of her army to secure narcotics trade from a'stan. Her husband and her were on the take.\

    Now lets compare something else.

    andak is willing to toe the line of the so-called experts when it suits his purpose. There is no OTHER correct explanation.


    Yet, when the experts of islam CITED TIME AND AGAIN by Scattergood show islam to be a degenerate and violent religion, its own prophet to be a pedophile and murderer, then andak deviates from the experts because that does not fit his purposes. there, his VERSION of islam is to be taken as the true one above EVEN ISLAMIC EXPERTS FROM SAUDI ARABIA.


    Thanks for continuing to lie and show your true jehad-apologizing colors, your continued support for the beheading of kaffir throats, your continued support of theft, pedophilia, rape and murder.

    No expectation of decency from you. Still no takers for your taqqiya here.

  4. #4
    andak01
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ShimonG View Post
    Every single person, WITH A NON-VESTED interest in pakistan has condemned Bhutto as a corrupt person who sponsored jehadi elements against india, CREATED the taliban with her ISI general Naseerullah Babar, funded the taliban takeover of a'stan, probably at the behest of her army to secure narcotics trade from a'stan. Her husband and her were on the take.
    Well yes, the American people have a vested interest in the stability of Pakistan. Extremists like yourself want things to get worse. I'm not at all surprised her husband and her were on the take. Name me a third world leader who isn't.

    Fortunately for the future of the world, you are absolutely impotent to do anything other than watch as the diplomats of the world act responsibly and make deals and alliances with people you would genocide. I hope it causes you no end of sleep loss.

  5. #5
    andak01
    Guest
    I'm a hate monger? Just what kind of hatred do I espouse? I recognize the state of Israel and Judaism as one of the world's great religions. In return from you, you threaten to deport or kill me and my family and call my prophet a rapist and a thief by a set of rules which puts Moses (SAW) in the same category (1 Kings treatment of the Midianites). You tell lies post after post about many things (including that I'm killing you) and call me a liar in the face of sources to the contrary from JPost, Fox News, WSJ, Forbes. Whose being tolerant of whom?

    How much of this tripe do the mods allow before this forum reads like a Jewish version of StormFront? Aren't you better than this, or does this creep define IF?

    Benazar Bhutto and Musharraf were self interested parties willing to do deals with the US in order to enrich themselves and to preserve the interests of their country. The Taliban and Al Qaida are unwilling to work with the US in any circumstances. Their stated goal is to dispose of anyone that has dealings with the US. There is no credible other party in the equation, therefore, we do deals with Musharraf and would have done deals with Bhutto, and every time we do a deal with them, they are more hated by Al Qaida and the Taliban. In case you aren't up to speed ShimonG, the Taliban and Al Qaida are our enemy. When they claim an assassination, most of us don't celebrate. Even if Bhutto had created the Taliban, which she didn't, at a time when the US didn't recognize them as a mortal threat, and she later provided the means to destroy them, then her later actions would to some degree cancel her earlier ones in the same way that Gaddaffi has now become a self interested ally. The US government, unlike yourself recognizes that we are not at war with Islam. In fact, there are many, many Muslim allies in the war on terror and there always will be. Your worldview is not only wrong, it's being proven more wrong with every passing day, fortunately for everyone Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
    Last edited by andak01; 01-19-2008 at 08:12 AM.

  6. #6
    farmall
    Guest
    "And yet, we have a couple of posters here who celebrate her death. Makes me wonder what side they are on."

    I've explained the results I prefer from fratricide. You seem to prefer to cite press releases and government statements that are standard boilerplate. Why should I believe the public statements of the CIA? Their job is to manipulate the situation, not pursue some childish mission to tell the "truth" (whatever THAT is) to the simple-minded mob.

    You, understandably, dearly wish to market one hypothetical sort of Muslim as being fundamentally different from the overtly violent sort of Muslim, because your religion (like all religions) cannot allow you to find fault with the religion itself. One does not find fault with ones imaginary celestial friend.

    Others regard religion as a political ideology that is fundamentally of a piece, integrating everyone from the passive shopkeeper to the intellectual to the warrior. In that view, one cannot dissociate oneself from the rest of the team except by renouncing the whole ideology. This view is supportable in that the many are the power base for the few, the "sea" in which the unconventional fighters swim and which is also the basis for enemy governments.

    To be satisfied with an enemy MISTAKE is hardly to be on their side! I want Islamists to lead their religion into a train wreck. Radicals killing off their own sides intelligentsia is wonderful when Communists do it and wonderful when Islamists do it.

    What is interesting to me is that there is a way to use the evolved response of religion to perceived threat to reinforce counterproductive trends within the enemy camp. Islam is locked into primitive ways of fighting because they are part of the culture. It must destroy reformers because any reform weakens the hold of the superstition on the public. That process reinforces fratricide and violent internal rivalries.

    I celebrate the end of Bhutto because it is useful. It shows that Islam is so anti-female and anti-reform that it blows up those who (say) they want to change things (even though in that case it is a scam). It shows that democracy is unsuitable to a religion that demands theocracy. It weakens Pakistan with respect to India, and with luck Pakistan might even move to civil war one day. I prefer the extremist faction destroy the moderates, because the "extremists" are perfectly suited to provoke anti-Islamic blowback.

    "the Taliban and Al Qaida are our enemy. "

    They are your enemy in factional terms.
    They are my enemies, but their processes affect your camp in ways that can be useful to me. Not everything they do is useful, but when they destabilize Muslim states they damage the overall enemy effort. You are required to want strong, vigorous Muslim states. I do not benefit from strong enemies who can bring modern forces to bear and are free of internal threats.

    We can recognize that we benefit from different things. I do not benefit from Islam, so "we" are not on the same side.

  7. #7
    andak01
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by farmall View Post
    "the Taliban and Al Qaida are our enemy. "

    They are your enemy in factional terms.
    No. They are my enemy as a Muslim and as a seventh generation American. I do not wish for the demise and instability of our allies. I do not wish for nukes to fall into the hands of extremists. I do not wish to increase the likelihood of major terrorist attacks on Americans or anyone else.


    They are my enemies, but their processes affect your camp in ways that can be useful to me. Not everything they do is useful, but when they destabilize Muslim states they damage the overall enemy effort. You are required to want strong, vigorous Muslim states. I do not benefit from strong enemies who can bring modern forces to bear and are free of internal threats.
    How about nihilistic forces that can bring nukes to bear?

    We can recognize that we benefit from different things. I do not benefit from Islam, so "we" are not on the same side.
    You benefit from Muslims willing to take up arms and provide intelligence against terrorists. If all you want is Armageddon then you're right, we are not on the same side. That's not a future. You're not an enemy to Muslims then, but an enemy to the human race, with the same goals as Al Qaida.

  8. #8
    farmall
    Guest
    "How about nihilistic forces that can bring nukes to bear?"

    That equates to a smaller force with lesser delivery equipment than an intact Pakistan. Posing Musharraf as the last barrier between AQ and nukes is great marketing for Musharraf (he's made the most of it) but it is transparent. No Muslim nation should have nukes, so it is worth the risk to take out those with small nuclear forces before they grow too large.

    It is quite possible for Pakistan to collapse without its nukes going astray, and there are many interested parties who would work to secure them. It would be in the interest of those Pakistanis guarding the weapons to hand them over in return for money and "protection" just as Saddams commanders sold out instead of mounting serious resistance.

    "You benefit from Muslims willing to take up arms and provide intelligence against terrorists."

    There will always be sellouts. When Muslims kill other Muslims they reinforce the divisions that allow outsider leverage. In a Pak collapse any number of people will be scrambling for advantage. A fundamentalist government would breed enemies quickly.

    None of this equates to the "Armageddon" word you are fond of. It DOES equate to a Pakistan wrecked by its own people. No one would contest their right to implode their own country.

    AQ is a convenient group to blame, but Musharraf had more to gain from whacking Bhutto. Fine with me.

    http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...1-2008_pg12_12

    " “The government agreed to hold democratic elections due to public pressure but it doesn’t actually want them to take place,” surmises Irfan, who runs a textile factory. “It doesn’t really want to lose the power that it has right now in Pakistan. The anarchy in the country due to the bomb blasts can provide the government with an easy excuse to delay the elections. I think this will probably be done at the very last minute, so that it looks as if it is a completely unplanned decision.”

  9. #9
    Senior Member bararallu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NY & TA
    Posts
    6,774
    Farmall,

    Who do you think bought the Nukes for Pakistan?

    It's a poor country after all. Neither the Russians nor Chinese (yes them too), would be too happy selling them. And if the latter did sell, it wouldn't be all too cheap.. So who provided the immense amount of money to make it happen?

  10. #10
    farmall
    Guest
    Why is there the assumption that they were purchased?

    Poor countries can still fund weapons by diverting resources from useless things like feeding their people. North Korea comes to mind...

    Diverting US funding to the project was of course possible. The billions spent to maintain the Paks as a counter to the Commies were ripe for the picking.

    India was buddies with the Soviets, so it was necessary to have a strong Pakistan.
    It is not necessary any longer. India is more useful and has more interests in common with the US.

    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion.../mb_050701.htm

  11. #11
    Senior Member bararallu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NY & TA
    Posts
    6,774
    Why because it takes an immense amount of money to fabricate the good stuff from yellow cake. Iran is wealthier than Pakistan AFAIK and it's population no less intelligent... I think there is good cause to assume that the Saudi Entity paid for the development of Pakistani Nukes. They bought them for parity with Iran if anything. The Pakistanis just saw synergy in getting them to offset another Indian backhanding [given their endless agitation tactics, aka state sponsored Terrorism].

    BTW, the Indians under Indira where pretty bad, no doubt, but the US also did it's part in pushing them closer to the Soviet regime. There was a consequence in backing Pakistan. Imagine if the Indians backed Cuba full hilt? It was badly plaid out from both sides.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. U.S. reportedly warned Bhutto of possible assassination attempts
    By ForceRecon79 in forum Global Terrorism
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-31-2007, 08:00 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-23-2004, 03:27 PM
  3. Al Qaida planned Israel attack with hijacked Saudi F-15
    By L@mplighterM in forum In The News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-11-2003, 11:08 AM
  4. Saudis gave Al Qaida $500 million and never stopped giving
    By L@mplighterM in forum In The News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-04-2003, 11:29 AM
  5. Al Qaida funded by only 12 individuals
    By Miriam in forum In The News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-25-2002, 10:45 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •