Pakistan breaches trust, names local CIA boss

Source: Times of India

WASHINGTON: Amid bitter, recriminatory exchanges between the United States and Pakistan over the Osama bin Laden extermination, planned bilateral visits of President Asif Ali Zardari to Washington DC and a return trip of President Barack Obama to Islamabad are both in jeopardy. Ties between the two sides are expected to slide further following Pakistan's "outing" of the CIA station chief in Islamabad on Saturday.

In a sign of how bad ties are between the two countries, Pakistani media on Saturday once again publicly named the CIA station chief in Islamabad, a breach of both protocol and trust, that is bound to enrage Washington.

A Pakistani TV channel and a newspaper considered mouthpieces of the country's military said the ISI chief Ahmed Shuja Pasha had met CIA station chief Mark Carlton to protest US incursion into Abbottabad to kill al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden. CIA station chiefs remain anonymous and unnamed in public although the host government is told.

Earlier, the Obama administration had asked Pakistan to disclose names of its top intelligence operatives to determine whether they had contact with Osama or his agents.

Read more: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Pakistan-breaches-trust-names-local-CIA-boss/articleshow/8191679.cms

---

I am speechless. Instead of mending fences, Pakistan seems determined to be on a path of self-destruction.

Cut off the foreign aid they're given!

Not a single damned scrap for those bastards, pure and simple.

The divided loyalties will be their downfall, they are playing both ends against the middle.

Losing strategy in the long run, as those that have to deal with them diplomatically, militarily, and economically will force them to make a stand, one way or another.

That can be said about any network that plays the same game.

"I have been warning that this doesn't make sense and in fact that it may destabilize Pakistan, which many people agree with. And yet they are moving forward with it, without any, I think, serious regard for the regional consequences of this huge troop buildup." http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/russ-feingold-troop-surge-afghanistan-does


The rest of the story is worth reading too....

the US wouldn't say or do squat about it? That would be all right with everybody?
We've already seen (in the Ray Davis case, among other events) that the US is on a mission to destabilize and antagonize Pakistan, our newest "enemy." It's not so much that "Pakistan seems determined to be on a path of self-destruction" as the US seems on a path to destroy it.

look up the Zetas, we don't do squat about it

Sending bombing raids across the border any time we have "good intel" and blowing up half city blocks of people to get one bad guy.

I've been thinking that Pakistan was using Bin Laden to basically extort money out of us. "Give us money to keep our nukes out of Bin Lades hands" all the while making sure he is alive so that threat is real.

So, what does our government do when the Paks are trying to calm people down after bin Laden? They resume bombing. Brilliant.

a quaint and obsolete concept as 'national sovereignty' not mean anything except when its the U.S.' national sovereignty at stake?

There's been nothing they have offered the US in return for trust, our constant loyalty and money. I'm thinking there was some return due for the US giving them some 'standing' internationally, They blew it, they stole, they lied, they get no respect for that. You want the US should honor what now?

...to keep their intel secure from international terrorists. Sorry, but I have zero fucking sympathy for them. They screwed the pouch in a massive way, period.

you can't conceivably argue that intentionally outing a CIA station chief is an appropriate response. It is, as the article stated, a breach of trust and protocol. If it had been the other way around, and Pakistan had illegally raided our territory and murdered a criminal suspect, the appropriate response would be to pursue legal redress before the UN and the International Criminal Court. Anything else is inappropriate.

Outing him to the news agencies is akin to pulling the security cover for Benazir Bhutto. Both actions inevitably doom the target...doubly so when a lot of crazy militants are looking for revenge for Osama. Its almost like passing a death sentence on him, and he will have to be recalled to the states...to escape threats to his life.

Again...if someone actually believes that the ISI had no hand in leaking this info..they are probably the same people who bought the story that the ISI/army had no idea where Osama was living.

They were the main sponsors of the Taliban, and Osama. They transferred 100k + to the 911 site leader. They have aided anti-U.S. military factions in Afghanistan. It is time we treated them for what they are.. a hostile foreign power.

after all, a nuclear power. And supply lines for our troops in the Af-Pak theater run from the Indian Ocean through Pakistan.

Just sayin'

into thinking that the culprit/villain is not living in your country.

while we harbored people who attacked them I think we'd not have much call to bitch.

...and allow China to make them their protectorate?

"Pakistani media on Saturday once again publicly named the CIA station chief in Islamabad".

Notice how they made "Pakstani media" into "Pakistan" in the headline, and "Pakistan's "outing"" in the 1st paragraph?

That's like saying "America breaches trust beacuse Fox News and The Washington Times, A TV channel and newspaper considered mouthpieces of the country's Republican Party, said such and such."

It's also hardly breaking news if his name has been made public before.

What a reactionary load of warmongering propaganda this paper is coming out with. Seems more and more like The Times of India is India's version of The Washington Times (US) and The Daily Mail (UK).

They overblew SoS Clinton's and the Pakistani FM's comments too the other day.

"Amid bitter, recriminatory exchanges between the United States and Pakistan"

What "bitter, recriminatory exchanges"? :shrug:

Not Another Dime: Senator Wants Pakistani Aid Suspended Until Congress Receives Answers On OBL Compound
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/05/not-another-dime-senator-wants-pakistani-aid-suspended-until-congress-receives-answers-on-obl-compou.html

Lawmakers Question Pakistani Aid After Bin Laden
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2011/May/Lawmakers-Question-Pakistani-Aid-After-Bin-Laden/

Pakistan warns America of "disastrous consequences" of future raids
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/05/05/pakistan-warns-america-of-disastrous-consequences-of-future-raids-115875-23108821/

Which reported the exact same story today, a full day later than the TOI report.Please do not fall into the fallacy of believing that everything from India/non American nations are of questionable validity.

and, frankly, they are probably correct. It was from Pakistan that the Mumbai terrorists came; they fund extremist Kashmiris, indeed their original attempt to force the Maharajah of Kashmir (Hari Singh) to accede to them was by the use of terrorists; they allowed and probably encouraged A Q Khan to sell nuclear secrets and materials. In addition Pakistan has fomented trouble in Afghanistan (whoever is in power there) and veered between hugely corrupt democracy and military dictatorship.

China might be willing to support the venal rulers of Pakistan but they also want to stop Muslim extremists in China.

Mind you allowing Pakistan to be supported by China might be to the benefit of the USA. The US budget would be $3.2 bn per year to the good and a similar amount out of the pocket of China.

I did not say Pakistan was the only player in the game, only that some (myself included) consider Pakistan to be a sponsor of terror and a rogue state.

Some of the violence is millennia old tribal conflicts where if on group is getting support from A another group will fight A as well as B. In addition many tribes will not wish to accede to Pakistani control. Some of it will be various shades of Islamic extremism where one sect or view of Islam is in constant conflict with all other views. China will, no doubt, be pushing the Nepali guerrillas to assist some groups. There may even be some input from the Turkomen and the Uzbeks.

The fact that Pakistani oligarchs feel they have to send poorly trained and equipped troops into the tribal provinces speaks only to their desire to appear to administer the region and provide cover from the suspicions of other states. The real facts are, probably, that they have never controlled that region any more than the Raj did.

...those same terrorists. Not some ethereal "war on terror", either. A real one that has gone on for several years and cost them a thousands of Pakistani military and civilian lives, as detailed above and here:

Annual Fatalities in Terrorist Violence in Pakistan, 2003-2011
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/database/casualties.htm

That doesn't make sense.

BTW

There is no conflict here for the oligarchs of Pakistan or for any other state - little people suffer but never the rulers. The conflict in the Northwestern Territories Protectorate provides a cheap war to justify the US $3.2 bn of aid.

Pakistan is known to sponsor terrorist groups; as I said earlier the Mumbai terrorists acted with (at least) the tacit approval of the Pakistani ruling powers and the Kashmiri anti-Indian groups operate from and are funded by Pakistan. The Taliban are known to have high level sponsors within the Pakistani ruling elite and have been used by that elite as assassins when convenient.

I suspect that the only people who don't know who the CIA folk are would be the American taxpayer.

Our money and troops buy us trouble all over the planet. Our history on treaties is not great, either.

I have not supported any foreign adventure in my lifetime. I was born in 1948. I would like for there to be a year when American peons are not dying overseas for profits for war merchants before I die.

I doubt it.

vigiled with carried a sign that said, "Where's my peace dividend?" (Keep in mind that GW I took place very shortly after the breakup and dissolution of the USSR.) I have remembered that sign ever since but grow increasingly pessimistic as the years roll by and the military fetishization continues apace.

ummmm .... from a press release or briefing from ISI re: the meeting?

There is otherwise no way for the media to know who the CIA station chief is.

:grr:

Oh, wait . . . .

:yoiks:

using the word 'lease' (as in, we leased the land in Afghanistan but the lease has since expired)?

While the Times of India has a pretty good track record it is wise to get a second source before fully accepting the slant of the story. Just sayin'.

anywhere near Pakistan, militarily or politically. It's an unstable country with questionable leaders, entrenched factions who've been fighting each other for hundreds of years and an economy in shambles -- and that's just the U.S. Seriously, Pakistan had to be bribed to be our "allies." What the hell else did the U.S. government expect? Loyalty? Really?

We don't like each other, we don't trust each other, but we need each other.

It is a myth perpetuated by the Pakistanis and old state dept mandarins from the cold war era.

Actually, Pakistan as an ally is worse for the war in Afghanistan than Pakistan as a hostile state.

If Pakistan was not an ally, we could go and hunt terrorists in Pakistan willy-nilly and Pakistan is too weak to take on the United States openly.

What we need is a tough negotiating posture and get more out of Pakistan for the money we are spending. (Like getting control of the nukes as collateral)

Pakistan's nuclear blackmail has always been "give us money, do as we say, overlook what we do lest the nukes fall into wrong hands." Thus we tolerate Pakistani terror in India (some 8 separate incidents), Pakistani terror camps in Kashmir, Pakistan harboring Indian terrorists like Dawood Ibrahim and others, no access for FBI to AQ Khan and no operations allowed inside Pakistan. Yet, we have paid over $128 billion since 1960.

Sounds like a lousy bargain.

Is that what you really want?

America going to war with nuclear armed Pakistan?

You really want the Afghanistan war to escalate and broaden fully into Pakistan?

Really?

Wow.

because the evidence is there for all to see that Pakistan is quickly becoming a
rogue state.

evolution.

but I would love to hear your explanation of how the United States can prevent
Pakistan from becoming a rogue state?

it is.

1. Pakistan did not exist before 1947. It was created by the nefarious brits by dividing India before independence.
2. A "two nation" doctrine -- two nations, equal, one muslim, one predominently hindu -- was put in place.
3. Immediately after independence, Pakistan decided to conquer the rest of India like muslims of the 12th century did.
4. This resulted in several wars between Pakistan and India, one of them culminating in dismemberment of Pakistan and Bangladesh was born in 1971.
5. Pakistan cannot compete with India which is 6 times larger in population and 182 times bigger in GDP.
6. The Russian adventure in Afghanistan taught Pakistan how an armed insurgency works, thanks to Reagan and CIA.
7. Pakistan then tries to use the same against India and while at it, exports terror to Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Dagestan, Xin Jiang, Bali and Mindanao.
8. Pakistan's terror skills allow it to create, fund, train and arm terrorist outfits rapidly and thus Al Q'aida was propagated.
9. Pakistan doesn't trust pro-India Ahmad Shah Masood in Afghanistan so they create the Taliban and overthrow the Afghan regime.
10.Pakistani ISI wires $100,000 via Khalid Sheikh Mohammad to Mohammad Atta - the main 9/11 hijacker.

Thus, Pakistan's problems are related to its ego and inferiority complex vis a vis India. On the current path, it WILL become a rogue state.

The only way to stop this is to balkanize Pakistan into Baluchistan, Sindhudesh, Multan and Khalistan along ethnic divides. Once broken up, they will be much smaller countries and won't pose a threat.

for a lot of these nefarious dealings, Israel/Palestine comes to mind but
wouldn't you agree though that splitting them into smaller groups will
create more problem than what we have now?

1. Pakistan did not exist before 1947. It was created by the nefarious brits by dividing India before independence.
2. A "two nation" doctrine -- two nations, equal, one muslim, one predominently hindu -- was put in place.
3. Immediately after independence, Pakistan decided to conquer the rest of India like muslims of the 12th century did. (Link to a reliable source, please)
4. This resulted in several wars between Pakistan and India, one of them culminating in dismemberment of Pakistan and Bangladesh was born in 1971.
5. Pakistan cannot compete with India which is 6 times larger in population and 182 times bigger in GDP. (New Zealand can't "compete" with America, an even bigger proportional gap than your example. So what?)
6. The Russian adventure in Afghanistan taught Pakistan how an armed insurgency works, thanks to Reagan and CIA. (If what you say in #3 is true, that's when they would have learnt it.)
7. Pakistan then tries to use the same against India and while at it, exports terror to Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Dagestan, Xin Jiang, Bali and Mindanao. (Links to reliable sources for all of this, please. Especially proof that Pakistan as a country exported terror to Bali, seeing as I live in Indonesia and witnessed/was affected by the effects of the terrorist attacks here, this one is personal.)
8. Pakistan's terror skills allow it to create, fund, train and arm terrorist outfits rapidly and thus Al Q'aida was propagated. (Are you saying Pakistan created Al Qaeda? Link from a reliable source, please)
9. Pakistan doesn't trust pro-India Ahmad Shah Masood in Afghanistan so they create the Taliban and overthrow the Afghan regime. (Link to a reliable source that proves Ahmad Shah Masood was "pro-India", please)
10.Pakistani ISI wires $100,000 via Khalid Sheikh Mohammad to Mohammad Atta - the main 9/11 hijacker. (Link to a reliable source that proves Pakistan's ISI funded 911, please)

"Evidence" is where for all to see that Pakistan is becoming a rogue state? Give some reliable sources for all of us to see, please.

Below are the 1st 36 in the list of peace organizations, here's the complete list of 93: http://www.insightonconflict.org/conflicts/pakistan/peacebuilding-organisations/










Again, here's the complete list of 93: http://www.insightonconflict.org/conflicts/pakistan/peacebuilding-organisations/

(Apologies for the differing sizes and untidiness, I'm a image editing newbie. The original is much much neater.)

the real war is already in Pakistan. The Afghani Taliban is in essence Pakistani military and ISI. The source of the war in Afghanistan is in Pakistan. We have been treating the symptoms instead of the root cause all this time.

TBH, I don't think you'll find anyone here who will go along with that idea, but thanks for the clarification.

:thumbsup:

it clearly does.

as one doesn't mind that the USSR fought (and essentially defeated) Nazi Germany along a 2,000-mile front while we dinked around in North Africa :)

Yea we fund the Pak's and send our jobs to India who both have nukes.

Hopefully it will stop us from starting another war there when we've got at least 2 going that we can't handle.

If you were given two options to go to war with one country based on evidence gathered,
one is Pakistan and the other is Iran, knowing what we all know now, which one of
those two countries would you go to war with?

Of course, that's not a popular observation at RAH RAH RAH KICK ASS DU.

the argument here is not about how many wars we start most importantly how to
keep America safe.

In this scenario, neither does not apply.

You have to choose one.

current disposition of forces doesn't have a bearing on whether we are capable of launching into a 3rd war, this time against much stronger enemies than before is failure to understand reality.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Yeah. I'm happy Pakistan has nukes. Because countries with nukes tend not to get invaded. They're a good deterrent.

....a few blocks from their biggest military academy, all the while claiming to have NO idea where he was? Oh, and not to mention the intel leaks to the terrorist org that aforementioned person was the head of? Yeah, I'm pretty sure they breached the trust WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY the fuck before we did.

violated the U.S.'s trust. They violated our trust by revealing the identity of the CIA station chief. We violated their trust by violating their sovereignty over and over and over again, the raid on OBL being only the latest installment. So I would say it's an open question as to which party betrayed the other's trust first. (That's ignoring the role that the ISI may have played in financing the activities of M. Atta in the days immediately preceding 9-11, a betrayal that, if true, on a completely different level.)

India would love to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Pakistan.

I mean, for generating heated discussion.

For people with a critical mind, they are silly.

I'd be equally suspicious of stories about tensions between the U.S. and India that were taken from Pakistani news sources. Just sayin...

lol

Report: CIA station chief in Islamabad outted
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20060943-503543.html

I hope this is not questionable as well. The TOI even though it maybe not as "flashy" as CNN and other news sources, always maintains a professionalism that is second to none.

Often enough to know that it is not the Fox News of Indian media selling political spin and propaganda?

See post #75.

I agree that the comment you made was justifiable(in the wake of post 75), however the general point i'm trying to make it that its definitely not good practice to simply write off anything without checking it. The TOI has been around for about 175 years and has "the largest circulation among all English-language newspapers in the world, across all formats (broadsheet, tabloid, compact, Berliner and online)".

Sure India has some Fox-ish news agencies, but the TOI is definitely not one of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times_of_India

It's why we were attacked on 9/11, unfortunately.

...for they have set the pattern of ousting persons that should remian clandestine...a la Plame...as part of a "get even" acceptable plan of action.

Since he was such 'good friends' with the CIA when we needed his help.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20060943-503543.html

So much for the Times of India being biased and unreliable...as per some posts in this thread. :eyes:
At least they broke the news a full 24 hours early!