Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
We'll bomb you to Stone Age, US told Pakistan
#1
A further, convincing example of America's humanitarian, democratic policies:
Quote:Musharraf reveals post-9/11 threat in book serialised by The Times
President Musharraf of Pakistan
PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, the President of Pakistan, claimed last night that the Bush Administration threatened to bomb his country “into the Stone Age” if it did not co-operate with the US after 9/11, sharply increasing tensions between the US and one of its closest allies in the war on terrorism. The President, who will meet Mr Bush in the White House today, said the threat was made by Richard Armitage, then the Deputy Secretary of State, in the days after the terror attacks, and was issued to the Pakistani intelligence director. “The intelligence director told me that [Armitage] said, ‘Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age’,” President Musharraf said. “I think it was a very rude remark.” The claims come at the end of a week in which relations between the US and Pakistan have sharply deteriorated, and days ahead of the publication of President Musharraf’s memoir, In the Line of Fire, which will be serialised in The Times from Monday.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,...05,00.html
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#2
Like some analysts are saying, I also think that Musharraf is pushing his upcoming book, and exaggerating world event news for his own personal gains. If that is what he is doing, I think he is a very wrong man for the position he is holding.
-------------------------------------
Following excerpt is from an article from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5371432.stm

In excepts from an interview with CBS released on Thursday, Gen Musharraf said the US had threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the Stone Age" unless it joined the fight against al-Qaeda.

He said the warning had been delivered by former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to Pakistan's intelligence director.

Mr Armitage told the BBC he had told Gen Musharraf on Thursday: "I would never say that. I don't command aircraft and I didn't have the authorisation."

He confirmed he had held a conversation with the Pakistani general Mr Musharraf had sourced the comments to, but said had not threatened military action.

At the press conference, where Mr Bush spoke first, the US president said he knew of no such conversation.

In his response to a reporter's question on the subject, the Pakistani president said, to laughter, that he was "honour-bound" with his publisher not to discuss details of his autobiography due out next week.

Some analysts say the timing of his comments on CBS may be an attempt to generate interest in the book.
Reply
#3
Armitage probably didn't make the threats,but IF Musharraf had refused access,he would have,IMO. Properly so.

I wish we had that attitude right now myself.
Reply
#4
It was 5 yrs ago and the world was in a state of shock and fear......I probably would have said the same thing S5
Reply
#5
My brother works for the US Army(civilian) and he told me back then right after 9-11 that he believed Bush would order an invasion of Pakistan IF they failed to deliver.

Who here doubts it?

However,making these threats up front seems silly,Richard Armitage is an old hand in State,he wouldn't have made such threats without a direct order from Bush and it just makes no sense to have done so.

I think the ISI man Armitage spoke to probably got the impression(good he did,too) that if they refused access,they might just regret the he.ll out of it and Bush always has a card up his sleeve relative to Pakistan. It is called INDIA.

I think Bush needs to send another envoy to Musharraf making the same alleged threats with credibility as he has recently signed a deal to allow al qaeda haven in Waziristan.
Reply
#6
I believe it to be true. Is it not exactly the fine art of American diplomacy we've been appreciating for many decades? War, terror, murder, covert operations, threats, blackmailing? Of course, totally justified in your eyes :lol:
Quote:I think Bush needs to send another envoy to Musharraf making the same alleged threats with credibility as he has recently signed a deal to allow al qaeda haven in Waziristan.
You kidding? I've been admonished not to call that creature on top of your republic names, but do you really believe he would have been awarded a second term without Al Quaeda? No, you don't. You are more intelligent than your president (as the overwhelming majority of Americans) is, you see the coherences. We know, the war must go on because it serves so many fine purposes, for example the rerouting of taxpayer money to the pockets of defence contractors. With no enemy, there's no war. Therefore, is it not safe to assume, if Pakistan protects Osama, it does so with American approval? You haven't caught him for so many years, after all.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#7
Palladin, the post above is a perfect example of what I have been saying here the last few weeks.

The pure unadulterated ignorance expressed so openly by our opposition saddens me a lot. The ignorance is then compounded by the silliness of the propaganda they are fed...and then pass on as reality.

They obviously have no clue as to the motivations of the American people, or our elected officials, and their words and actions just fan the flames of their destruction.
One can only hope that they get a clue, before their religion/politics/terrorist perspective quarantines (what is left of them) forever from decent society.
It is pretty obvious that their ignorance-skewed perspective might force us to simply treat them like rabid animals if they cannot restrain themselves.
Ken
Reply
#8
quadrat Wrote:I believe it to be true. Is it not exactly the fine art of American diplomacy we've been appreciating for many decades? War, terror, murder, covert operations, threats, blackmailing? Of course, totally justified in your eyes :lol:
As one of the best world leaders of all time --- US president Teddy Roosevelt --- was wont to say, "walk softly and carry a big stick". Well, as Bush said, "you are either with us or against us" in this war. And if Pakistan hadnt at least done the minimally helpful things they have done so far since 9/11, the "big stick" Armitage is supposed to have warned them about --- bombing them into the stoneage --- would have been justifiably employed.

And as far as conflicts on which a nation's survival or a tremendous defeat or loss of life hinges, NOTHING should be considered unjustified when the alternative is possibly ultiamte defeat. So any means that can be employed and "gotten away with" using can be considered justified if that is the only or best method.

For example, if we know a coming attack will be the nuking of an American population center and we capture a terrorist who we even think might have info that could help us stop the attack, then we should not rule out employing the worst methods of torture, even resulting in the slow dismemberment or death of the subject, if all the lesser methods of "coercive interrogation" fail to yield to desired info. And anyone opposes this, even those who would decry this on religious grounds, are dead wrong.

quadrat Wrote:
Quote:I think Bush needs to send another envoy to Musharraf making the same alleged threats with credibility as he has recently signed a deal to allow al qaeda haven in Waziristan.
You kidding? I've been admonished not to call that creature on top of your republic names, but do you really believe he would have been awarded a second term without Al Quaeda? No, you don't. You are more intelligent than your president (as the overwhelming majority of Americans) is, you see the coherences. We know, the war must go on because it serves so many fine purposes, for example the rerouting of taxpayer money to the pockets of defence contractors. With no enemy, there's no war. Therefore, is it not safe to assume, if Pakistan protects Osama, it does so with American approval? You haven't caught him for so many years, after all.
The main reason the US hasnt gone into the tribal, "protected" areas of Pakistan to get or look for OBL already is because if we did, it would likely destabilize the current leader of Pakistan, likely resulting in a radical Islamic govt taking over Pakistan, which ALREADY HAS a nuclear arsenal!

Sometiemes things are not as cut and dried as they seem, and solutions are not a simple as you might think they should be. I still think we should be trying harder to get OBL, but I think we definitely need to try to keep Pakistan from falling into the wrong hands at the same time.

It is a crappy situation we are in regarding OBL and his probably being in Pakistan's "protected areas".
Reply
#9
Ken,

The opinion expressed above is not evidence of ignorance. It's evidence of something far worse and far more dangerous.

All the hostility towards both the USA and our POTUS is NOT ignorance. If it were,mere education could assist the ignorant.

It's the cosmos(all thinking outside Divine intentions is the cosmos(world thought system of satan's and/or "evil") opposing God's intent. No level of good intent,counter propaganda or education will change the mind of the cosmos.

No need to try or hope for it. Hope instead we of God stand tall as He desires,the cosmos is meaningless,don't let what is natural to the cosmos cause you disillusionment.
Reply
#10
My question is, why in God's name is Musharraf claiming these things in his book? Why did he write a book about how America bullied him into doing what it wants? Why was he on the Daily Show?

What does Stratfor think of this?
Reply
#11
Anonymous24 Wrote:My question is, why in God's name is Musharraf claiming these things in his book? Why did he write a book about how America bullied him into doing what it wants? Why was he on the Daily Show?

What does Stratfor think of this?
I have been wondering about these very same things, Anon. Not sure what else he said in the book, but could it be that he is restating that he was sort of bullied into cooperation, whether it actually happened or not, in order to try to at least somewhat pacify his more radical islamic political opponents and radical muslim terrorist types within Pakistan?

This is just a guess on my part as to his motivation for the claims of being bullied by the US. But maybe if his radical islamic enemies were led to believe that the main reason he went along with the US was to prevent a potential massive destruction taking place in Pakistan, maybe they would be less inclined to rise up against him and overthrow him for cooperating with the "infidels"?

Again, just a guess.
Reply
#12
I've thought that as well. But at the same time, it makes him look weak, which he doesn't want to look. But I think that is the reason - to show that he had no choice. I"m still sort of puzzled about the Daily Show. The whole thing seems surreal.
Reply
#13
You know,it may be that Bush might need to "bomb Pakistan back into the stone ages" after his comments yesterday. Did you guys read his comment that we might be buried if he decides to withdraw Pakistan from the coalition?

That's a strong threat.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)