No, I'm taking issue with the point that they made any serious effort to provide information. That they may have by accident or sheer luck, stands in stark contrast to the fact that the man was right under their nose for 9 years.
They got him!!!
- Thread starter blackrock13
- Start date
What reason do you have to believe they didn't? I presented facts. You are now presenting something based on your own opinion and speculation.Asterix said:No, I'm taking issue with the point that they made any serious effort to provide information. That they may have by accident or sheer luck, stands in stark contrast to the fact that the man was right under their nose for 9 years.
If you want my opinion, which I have not yet given, my opinion is that ISI was divided, with some elements cooperating with bin laden, and some elements working against him.
That's consistent with the facts though it relies on some speculation. Your position is inconsistent with at least some of the facts.
The only "facts" that we have, is that the US proceeded on a mission inside Pakistan to take out the most wanted man in the world, and kept the Pakistanis in the dark. The only other "fact" that we have is that for nearly a decade nobody seemed to notice he was lving in plain view, the last six in a compound that stuck out like a sore thumb. Obama giving them lip service proves nothing. All this leads me to believe, and yes my opinion, that the Pakistani government was lying, sabotaged from within, or just completely incompetant. I prefer to think it was a combination of all three, though I could only guess about the ratio of the mix.What reason do you have to believe they didn't? I presented facts. You are now presenting something based on your own opinion and speculation.
If you want my opinion, which I have not yet given, my opinion is that ISI was divided, with some elements cooperating with bin laden, and some elements working against him.
That's consistent with the facts though it relies on some speculation. Your position is inconsistent with at least some of the facts.
The ISI, and the gov't of Pakistan overall, are wholly concerned with Pakistan's interests, and they're very good at playing what we would consider a "double game". They want to take credit for information that lead to OBL's demise while at the same time maintaining complete ignorance at his 6-year presence in the Abbotabad compound??. To beleive that the ISI would hand over blind info to the US or anyone else , well, you'd have to either be the most gullible person around or the most pigheaded ISI sympathist. Being an ISI sympathizer is totally acceptable if you are a Pakistani; otherwise, can I interest you in a bridge???Good old Fuji the last friend the ISI has in the West.
This is a PR spin, & any comment out of the White House now, as it was 1 year ago, is a similar spin that the US/Pakistan relationship is "working" well when it so obviously isn't.
Asterix's post #77 nails it 100%!!! Otherwise, it'll be pretty freakin hard to justify the $billions given to Pakistan over the past decade.
We also have the public statements made by Obama and others. Your position relies on a conspiracy theory that Obama was lying, to get around those facts.Asterix said:The only "facts" that we have, is that the US proceeded on a mission inside Pakistan to take out the most wanted man in the world, and kept the Pakistanis in the dark. The only other "fact" that we have is that for nearly a decade nobody seemed to notice he was lving in plain view, the last six in a compound that stuck out like a sore thumb. Obama giving them lip service proves nothing. All this leads me to believe, and yes my opinion, that the Pakistani government was lying, sabotaged from within, or just completely incompetant. I prefer to think it was a combination of all three, though I could only guess about the ratio of the mix.
This is why I point out my view is consistent with all the facts while you rely on some conspiracy type thinking to discount some of them.
My position is that Obama was doing what President's do. Lie when they think it would be in the best interests of the nation to maintain cooperation with a foreign nation that is at best tenuous to begin with. It isn't a conspiracy. It's Obama giving praise that I doubt is warranted. My god, fugi, give me a President who hasn't lauded a foreign government, when in fact they were corrupt from the ground up. You can't possibly be that naive.We also have the public statements made by Obama and others. Your position relies on a conspiracy theory that Obama was lying, to get around those facts.
This is why I point out my view is consistent with all the facts while you rely on some conspiracy type thinking to discount some of them.
I'm aware of your position. I'm just pointing out that it isn't consistent with all of the facts, and you had to resort to conspiracy theory type thinking to explain the difference. My opinion is consistent with the facts you had to explain away, without resorting to any sort of conspiracy theory. I apply Occam's Razor in cases like this, but suit yourself.My position is that Obama was doing what President's do. Lie when they think it would be in the best interests of the nation to maintain cooperation with a foreign nation that is at best tenuous to begin with. It isn't a conspiracy. It's Obama giving praise that I doubt is warranted. My god, fugi, give me a President who hasn't lauded a foreign government, when in fact they were corrupt from the ground up. You can't possibly be that naive.
Does anybody miss those OBL audio tapes telling us Westerners what bad people we are because we are "non-believers" and how he would kill us all (except Fuji)?
Naive isn't the word I'd use to describe that idiot:My position is that Obama was doing what President's do. Lie when they think it would be in the best interests of the nation to maintain cooperation with a foreign nation that is at best tenuous to begin with. It isn't a conspiracy. It's Obama giving praise that I doubt is warranted. My god, fugi, give me a President who hasn't lauded a foreign government, when in fact they were corrupt from the ground up. You can't possibly be that naive.
So, here we have the ISI, providing "core intelligence" to the CIA that lead to OBL's death? Is that the belief? Lets flesh that out a bit:
We have to believe that the Pakistani Intelligence service, operating in Pakistan, collected information on activities occurring in Pakistan, and simply handled that info over to the CIA (and their feelings are hurt because the CIA didn't share their analysis of the info provided to them). So, the ISI simply took this little nugget of knowledge and gave it directly to the CIA to follow up on? The ISI didn't do any further followup of their own. In their own country? Which is what they were created to do? And continue to be funded to do? The ISI couldn't get one of their own guys to do some basic legwork on this? They don't have any staff who can blend in with the population? None of their guys reads Urdu? Or Pashto? Or even English? Thats funny, because just about everyone else in Pakistan speaks at least one of those (usually all three and then some)? So Pakistan military Inter-services Intelligence either didn't have or couldn't spare at least 1 qualified dude to further follow up on this bit of collected info? Or did they have tons of guys working on it, and they were all just sooooo dumb that only the supreme expertise of the CIA could take this to the next step and beyond? Or maybe the prestigious and elite ISI staff just felt like shirking that day......"hey Mansour, I've uncovered something relating to Bin Laden. Should we ensure that Gen Pasha gets notified of this momentous event?" "Nahhhh Latif, just let it slide. Pakistan is leading New Zealand in the 2nd inning, so no-one wants to be bothered with that Bin Laden mess......hey, why don't you give it to that American fellow, Raymond Davis, That should be good for a laugh!"
Anyhow, I think I've made my point. While its good to see that the ISI still maintains their sense of humour, they really can't expect anyone outside of Pakistan to be foolish enough to beleive that:
1) they had no idea that OBL was in their backyard for 9 years;
2) they shared crucial information with the CIA without they themselves doing even the teensiest, tiniest bit of work on it themselves.
The only real question is did the ISI sell OBL out, or did western intelligence finally outsmart them?
Couldn't have said it better.Naive isn't the word I'd use to describe that idiot:
So, here we have the ISI, providing "core intelligence" to the CIA that lead to OBL's death? Is that the belief? Lets flesh that out a bit:
We have to believe that the Pakistani Intelligence service, operating in Pakistan, collected information on activities occurring in Pakistan, and simply handled that info over to the CIA (and their feelings are hurt because the CIA didn't share their analysis of the info provided to them). So, the ISI simply took this little nugget of knowledge and gave it directly to the CIA to follow up on? The ISI didn't do any further followup of their own. In their own country? Which is what they were created to do? And continue to be funded to do? The ISI couldn't get one of their own guys to do some basic legwork on this? They don't have any staff who can blend in with the population? None of their guys reads Urdu? Or Pashto? Or even English? Thats funny, because just about everyone else in Pakistan speaks at least one of those (usually all three and then some)? So Pakistan military Inter-services Intelligence either didn't have or couldn't spare at least 1 qualified dude to further follow up on this bit of collected info? Or did they have tons of guys working on it, and they were all just sooooo dumb that only the supreme expertise of the CIA could take this to the next step and beyond? Or maybe the prestigious and elite ISI staff just felt like shirking that day......"hey Mansour, I've uncovered something relating to Bin Laden. Should we ensure that Gen Pasha gets notified of this momentous event?" "Nahhhh Latif, just let it slide. Pakistan is leading New Zealand in the 2nd inning, so no-one wants to be bothered with that Bin Laden mess......hey, why don't you give it to that American fellow, Raymond Davis, That should be good for a laugh!"
Anyhow, I think I've made my point. While its good to see that the ISI still maintains their sense of humour, they really can't expect anyone outside of Pakistan to be foolish enough to beleive that:
1) they had no idea that OBL was in their backyard for 9 years;
2) they shared crucial information with the CIA without they themselves doing even the teensiest, tiniest bit of work on it themselves.
The only real question is did the ISI sell OBL out, or did western intelligence finally outsmart them?
It's more like a fact, at this point.So, here we have the ISI, providing "core intelligence" to the CIA that lead to OBL's death? Is that the belief?
The rest of your post is speculation about what happened after that fact, whether the ISI shared everything it knew, whether it was helping bin Laden, and so on. Clearly there are elements of the ISI that aid the Taliban and probably aided OBL, and those elements clearly had information that they did not share, in fact, would have been providing information to OBL.
That does not mean that other elements of ISI weren't sharing information with the Americans. I think this nuance may be too advanced for you. Try and think. It's not hard. Think it through.
At any rate, that interpretation is consistent with all the facts that we have, and doesn't require any sort of conspiracy theory. Your version requires some sort of conspiracy theory about why the American president, secretary of state, defense secretary, and others, would lie in public, not just once, but repeatedly, and consistently. Note, they could have just chosen their words carefully, and remained honest. You have to explain why they lie--and of course, you have your little pet conspiracy theory as to why they lie.
But it's a lot more plausible that they weren't lying, that their words are true, just carefully chosen.
You probably could have, but you wasted a few valuable braincells wasting time replying to Fuji's idiotic posts, so maybe the words just temporarily escaped you.Couldn't have said it better.
IMO, Fuji is just toooo stupid and annoying to deal with; its fun to read and laugh at his stupidity, but if you try to get into it with him he will drag you down to his level.
I treat Fuji as if he were the mythical Medusa - never deal with him directly. Put him on ignore and keep him there. When you see one of his retarded blabberings quoted in someone else's posts, you can address that, as its the "reflection", and like Perseus, you won't be affected by the sheer gravitation weight of his stupidity. I can see via Aardvarks post #75, Fuji makes some insane comment that OBL was captured; and he repeats that stupidity in the post you've quoted in #81. By viewing the "reflection", I'm not affected by the pure concentrated energy of his stupidity (which has a stupifying effect on the reader who is exposed to it directly). So now Fuji claims that the ISI & CIA worked together to capture OBL? How did Fuji uncover this earthshattering fact - he'll be the first to tell you that its his profound ability to read between the lines, to interpret the subtle clues that others cannot fathom. Fuji sees and hears what no-one else can....................mental-health experts have a term for that type of delusional state: "batshit crazy".
Put him on ignore and keep him on ignore, let other folks deal with his batshit craziness, while you sit back and laugh at the proceedings, occasionally emerging to poke fun at the buffoon, who is too weak-willed and insecure to resist replying, and too stupid to realize that you, like great Perseus, are protected by a shield of smartitude.
It a great stress reliever!!!
Almost as good as watching "Clash of the Titans" on DVD!!!
Peace out, homeboys!!
Lying about what I wrote doesn't actually make you correct. It just makes you an idiot who has to misquote people in order to pretend to win debates. That is truly pathetic.So now Fuji claims that the ISI & CIA worked together to capture OBL?
Providing "core intelligence" to the CIA, which you seem to agree with, isn't working together? A bit much to call seth a liar, don't you think? Btw, he's not going to respond to you directly, and won't even see what you've written unless someone quotes you as I just did. But maybe you missed that. Trying to bait him by throwing out insults is rather pointless.Lying about what I wrote doesn't actually make you correct. It just makes you an idiot who has to misquote people in order to pretend to win debates. That is truly pathetic.
It may be working together, but it isn't clearly "working together to capture OBL", that is something I didn't say. Actually, the Pakistanis said they were providing information, but that the Americans were refusing to co-operate with them. That does not sound like "working together" at all, really. In fact, all I've done on this thread is point out what the Pakistanis actually said, and that it agrees with what Obama said. It is you and Seth who have gone on to speculate beyond the facts, other than in the one instance above where I clearly stated I was giving an opinion.Providing "core intelligence" to the CIA, which you seem to agree with, isn't working together?
The two of you are launching into all these personal attacks merely because I've noted what the facts are.
His post was intended to insult me, and he did so by fabricating what I wrote, so that he could insult me by attacking a straw man. It was dishonest and it was malicious. "Liar" is precisely the word, he earned it. A simple misunderstanding in a non-malicious context I'd let slide or politely correct, but if he's going to make personal attacks, and if he is going to do it by lying about what I said--well then he shouldn't be too shocked when his lying is pointed out.A bit much to call seth a liar, don't you think?
I honestly don't care whether he reads the response. I'm more interested in ensuring that everyone else learns of his penchant for lying misrepresentation, so that they audit his posts accordingly. He's been pissed off with me ever since I pointed out that he had drunk the Pashtunwali kool-aid, several years ago, and ever since then he's taken to lying to try and slander me.
Swell. Colored me confused. I thought it was OBL we were talking about. I have to hand it to you fugi. You shift gears and split hairs better then anyone else I've ever seen on this board. You missed out on a fine career being a mouthpiece for whomever. I was foolish to expect anything else.It may be working together, but it isn't clearly "working together to capture OBL", that is something I didn't say.
Perhaps you should have read my posts before insulting me. If it wasn't crystal clear to you after my post #80 there isn't much hope for you.Swell. Colored me confused. I thought it was OBL we were talking about.
Or perhaps you are simply too used to stupid American "sound bite" political debates, where everything is black and white, and the lines are drawn clearly. When someone advances a more nuanced position, as I almost always do, you get confused. You're not used to that. You want a world of left/white black/white right/wrong and when anyone points out a shade of grey you assume they're opposed to everything you believe.
Struck a nerve, didn't I? For some odd reason I seem to be good at that lately. Apologies to anyone I've offended. I wasn't trying to insult you fugi, I was telling you how I see you. You claim to always be the man closest to the facts, when you speculate and spin all the time. It's not just me that sees you this way mate. You act as if you are carrying the mantle of truth, and frankly that is more insulting then any word I can call you, or you can call me.Perhaps you should have read my posts before insulting me. If it wasn't crystal clear to you after my post #80 there isn't much hope for you.
Or perhaps you are simply too used to stupid American "sound bite" political debates, where everything is black and white, and the lines are drawn clearly. When someone advances a more nuanced position, as I almost always do, you get confused. You're not used to that. You want a world of left/white black/white right/wrong and when anyone points out a shade of grey you assume they're opposed to everything you believe.
