Extracting Pakistan, bin Laden and its US past

May 11, 2011

We are unlikely to know the full truth about the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan for months, and probably years. So I have decided to retreat into history, where we have more, though still fragile, hope of understanding what really happened.  Here is one version.

General Khalid Mahmud Arif worked closely with Pakistani military ruler General Zia-ul-Haq, the architect of the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989. His memoirs, “Khaki Shadows”, show how the internal narrative of the Pakistan Army was constructed at a formative time for the current military leadership. I’ve extracted some details from his chapter on “The Military under Zia” and leave you to judge which remain relevant today:

* Zia declined an opportunity offered by a former air force chief to move ahead on the golf course, saying this was “against the golf ethics”

* Zia was a graduate of Fort Leavenworth (1964)

* In a posting to Jordan in the late 1960s, Zia helped put down violence by the Palestine Liberation Organisation. “Zia’s successful military performance was disliked by the authorities in Syria and by the PLO, and was a subject he avoided discussing.”

* “He interacted well socially despite being an introvert. He spoke easily, laughed heartily, cracked jokes, was a chain smoker and never took hard drinks.”

* In 1981, Zia was helpful in including General Arif and his wife in an official delegation so that both could afford to attend a family wedding abroad.

* When former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto decided to appoint Zia as army head, thereby ignoring other more senior officers,  “to his (Bhutto’s) mind, Zia was the best choice for the country and for the army, and the safest for him personally.”

* Quote from M.P. Bhandara on Zia: “The more firmly he was in the saddle, the more benign he became.”

* “The military was not involved in the trial of Mr. Z.A. Bhutto…”

* After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the arrival of more than 3 million Afghan refugees, other countries began to provide humanitarian aid. “The assistance was not without strings. The major powers wished to collect intelligence in the garb of providing relief to the uprooted and needy Afghans. Pakistan knew that the undercover world was having a field day. It was a case of evaluating the cost-benefit ratio of the incoming aid.”

* “Pakistan had assessed that despite its seriousness, the Afghan crisis would be diplomatically settled earlier than the Kashmir dispute with India … to avoid facing a two-front scenario, Islamabad initiated a peace offensive with India to isolate this country in the comity of nations and to put it on the defensive. Zia’s visit to Jaipur without a formal invitation, ostensibly watching a cricket test, was an eloquent proof of the General’s innate caution.”

* Pakistan began providing covert military assistance to the Afghan freedom fighters in late 1978, four years before the first US aid package to Pakistan became effective in 1982.

* Between the years 1980-1989, Pakistan’s air space was violated 2,730 times from her Western border, causing 1,355 casualties … the people felt unsafe and blamed the government for not retaliating …

* The Soviet military forces established their writ on Kabul. The local puppet regime … obeyed the dictates of its foreign advisers … The Soviet Union quickly learned that Kabul was not the whole of Afghanistan.

* In the assessment of Pakistan, the combined Soviet-Afghan military effort … was inadequate to commit … (an) offensive operation against Pakistan

* The Soviet misadventure in Afghanistan provided an opportunity to the Zia administration which took advantage of it in the national interest of Pakistan

* (After much debate among Pakistani authorities), “the decision to provide military support to the Afghan freedom fighters was never announced in the meetings, nor made public.  It was confidentially conveyed to all concerned and was kept a hush-hush affair.  The military brass thus always a part of the decision.”

* (after the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran) the only access to Afghanistan to the U.S.-led west was through Pakistan.

* (after Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was hanged in 1979 and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) “the western media suddenly discovered that Zia, the dictator, was in fact a ‘good guy’ …. This enabled Zia to consolidate his grip on the country.”

* The Afghan crisis provided fertile ground to foreign intelligence agencies, who were allowed into Pakistan with the approval of the Pakistan government

* The detractors of Zia’s Afghan policies “fail to recognise that in 1979-80, Pakistan did not have any other options”.

* “Most Pakistanis perceive the U.S. as a fair-weather friend rather than a friend in need”.

* Richard Nixon told  Zia not to tell the American president about the double-game. “Let the details be handled by his staff and colleagues.”

* The U.S. interest in working with Pakistan to defeat the Soviet Union “was conceived in Pakistan as a tactical move”. Nonetheless, it allowed Pakistan to negotiate aid and a softening of U.S. opposition to Pakistan’s nuclear programme.

* “The CIA-ISI intelligence link became strong and inter-dependent, with advantages and drawbacks to Pakistan.”

* But “Zia suspected that Washington could abandon Pakistan when its aims in Afghanistan had been achieved. The ISI was instructed that all meetings in Pakistan between the U.S. officials and the Afghan leaders would take place in the presence of its representatives.”

* Pakistan trusted the United States not to pull the rug from under its feet when Washington’s aims in Afghanistan were achieved. “The fallacy of this assumption stood exposed … when America closed the aid tap, withdrew political support, and left Pakistan to fend for herself.”

* (After the Soviet withdrawal), “Pakistan could now be sidelined and India wooed, as it promised to be a far bigger market for Indian investment and trade.”

As a postscript. thanks to all the regular readers, as well as others, for joining the live blog the other day.  If you want to continue the discussion you can also find me on Twitter @myraemacdonald


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

> Zia declined an opportunity offered by a former air force chief to move ahead on the golf course, saying this was “against the golf ethics”

Looks like Zia’s ethics were restricted to the golf course.

You missed an important and revealing incident that the Wikipedia entry on Zia covers (http://bit.ly/iAizRo):

– It was during this time [1975] when General Zia invited Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto as the Colonel-in-Chief of the Armoured Corps at Multan, using his tailor to stitch the Blue Patrols of his size. The next day, Bhutto was requested to climb a tank and engage a target, where the target was quite obviously hit. After the function, General Zia met Bhutto, placed his hand on the Quran and said, “You are the saviour of Pakistan and we owe it to you to be totally loyal to you.”

– On 1 March 1976, Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto approved Zia as Chief of Army, ahead of a number of more senior officers.

– On 5 July 1977, […] Bhutto and members of his cabinet were arrested by troops under the order of General Zia.[…] On 4 April 1979, the former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was hanged.

The say, “Lucky at cards, unlucky in love”. I guess Zia was ethical in golf, and unethical in everything else.

Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive

The article is not clear to me.

Is this another attempt to suggest Islamization of PA started after Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?

I’ll give an example from 1971, even though proxy jihad by PA dates much further back.

Bengalis were asked to recite Muslim prayer, if they were not able to, they were executed on the spot….

Memories of December 16
Author: Akhtar Payami
Publication: Dawn, Karachi
Date: December 16, 1997

The soldiers (from West Pakistan) and the militia who had already arrived there found themselves in a state of confusion. Many of them had never been in East Pakistan before.
Most puzzled were the militiamen wearing dark-green baggy uniform. Often they would stop someone on the road and ask him to recite kalima.

When he did, they would rebuke him for learning the kalima by heart to hide his real religious identity of being a ‘kafir.’ At the time of being sent to the eastern wing, they were told that most inhabitants of East Pakistan were non- Muslims or that after the eruption of the civil war, the province had been taken over by the Hindus.

Posted by netizen | Report as abusive


What’s the point of these bullet points? Nobody’s interested in this history everyone knows it and its nothing new either. You are just trying to say, “I don’t have anything to say because I became lazy so to cover up I put up useless and stale history and that too not my original work.” If you cannot come up with something true about present and possible future then don’t write garbage here. It just goes to show that Pakistan and its media propagandists don’t know what to say when their masters PA/ISI stand fully exposed in front of whole world. This is Reuters and not just one of the other media sites. Don’t spoil Reuters name.

Does Reuters do a regular background check on its reporters and content writers to verify their credentials and integrity?

Posted by 007XXX | Report as abusive

I’m sorry but you need to go back a bit more. The use of “Lashkars” as a tool to attack India was in play from the 50s. The process was streamlined in the 80s but started much earlier.

Posted by rainydays | Report as abusive

I always feel very uneasy when someone refers to “the soviet invasion” of Afghanistan… It says a lot in just a few words.

Here’s another version, as we retreat into history..

Was it not the last democratic socialist government of Afghanistan that requested that the soviets intervene to protect the country and government from US trained and funded militants??

Hardly an invasion… Nevertheless this western re-creation of history is perpetuated to this day to protect a more sinister reality, to diminish the responsibility the US had in tranforming Afghanistan into the lawless radical wasteland it remains today.

It’s one of those pivotal pieces of withheld information that puts the entire region’s history into perspective, and that of US interest in the region.

Decades ago, now Obama’s cheif foreing policy advisor and mentor Brezinski wrote a book on US foreign policy strategy called the ‘grand chess board’. Within he, blatantly, outlined the broader ‘chessboard’ strategy of US involvement in central asia, which he considered to be the most strategic area of influence and power on the planet.

Not coincidentally it was Brezinski who personally oversaw the arming and funding of the militants attacking the Soviet backed government. That’s right – government. Not regime.

By the CIA’s own admission at the time , in a very public trial, there was no cause to consider the soviets a threat to world order or US interests and in a showdown with the neo-cons, later to staff the bush administration, it was admitted that the reason the CIA knew they weren’t a threat is because the intel presented by the neo-cons had in fact been designed and planted by the CIA themselves as counterintelligence propaganda.

It is also a known myth that the Soviet empires’ collapse was as a result of the failed Afghan war.

Today, when watching a video of Brezinski on the ground in Afghanistan in the 80s rallying the jihadists against the Afghan government, so blatantly, with cries of, “you will win, because your cause is right. And because god is on your side!”, one can only think… Is there any value at all in listening to the media? Perhaps not of their own intentions…

But the more you retreat into history the more you realise that the opposite of what we’re told is more consistant with the facts, motives and characters of the people who sell us these ideas.

If we were only able to look at the secret lives, meetings and bank accounts of the powerful people we rely on im sure we would “have a hope of understanding what really happened”.

But apparently some things are more important that the truth, like executing an unarmed man.

Posted by brian-decree | Report as abusive

actually, the us didnt drop pakistan and woo india immediately after the soviet withdrawal; the us began in a minimal way to implement its non proliferation laws which it had earlier completely violated and thus there were blocks in the us pak relationship; most us officials were however synpathetic to pakistan and hostile to india till at least 96. an influential us official close to the isi brought the hurriyat group together and not the isi; some changes took place in 1996 but real change waited till the talbott singh dialogue from 98-99 when in a review of the relationship from the outset the us discovered what both india and the us had meanwhile chosen to forget (for different reasons and different subsequent narratives) that in the early years of the cold war it was the us which chose pakistan and not india that chose ussr or non-alignment; the reasons for the us choice of pakistan were that pakistan made it clear (read cda barnes despatches from karachi) that it would never accept a situation in which the us was friends with both india and pakistan and the british lobbied for the pivotal geopolitical strategic location of (west) pakistan (as anticipated by olaf caroe in the 30s ‘wells of power’ hypothesis – to which can now be added fear of the pakistani diaspora in the uk); sounds familiar doesnt it with current pakistani and uk positions? the more things change….; the difference is , maybe the us is in decline as pakistan crows (as pakistan trumpets the rise of china) but does it want to be taken down in a sucker play by pakistan? and perhaps if the us sincerely chose to finally embrace india maybe the decline can be avoided or limited and it continue in c21 if not as a hyperpower but as at least the most influential chairman of the board of great powers;

Posted by buntyj | Report as abusive

–Zia declined an opportunity offered by a former air force chief to move ahead on the golf course, saying this was “against the golf ethics”

Most of us also know that the same Nazis who burnt thousands of Jews in gas ovens before WWII, were also the ones crying at the utter beauty of classical music of Mozart and Brahms and Strauss played for them at special concerts.

Now doesn’t that get you to really appreciate the humanitarian aspect of the Nazis?

The whole mess in South Asia is a reflection of the weakness of India’s military muscle and its utter lack of any strategic vision. The other reason is, no doubt, US meddling with Pakistan and Afghanistan over the decades, but even that is another reflection of India’s weaknesses.

Self-respecting nations do not stand by while their citizens are killed by foreigners. This is precisely what India has done since Pakistan started its proxy wars in 1948, evolving that into terrorism since 1989.

India needs a strategic vision and then the political consensus to work toward that vision. Proposal:

(a)Islamabad and Beijing must come to believe that cooperation with India is in their best national interest and
(b) Islamabad and Beijing must come to believe that hostility toward India in NOT in their best national interest.

How to accomplish this? That, my friends, is for another post.

Posted by JJJackxon | Report as abusive

” when America closed the aid tap, withdrew political support, and left Pakistan to fend for herself.””

Wish the US had done this in 1979 itself. In its quest to avenge Vietnam debacle, it created a monster that is much bigger than threat posed by the USSR. The US needed the USSR to keep its growth and strength sustained. The US has become considerably weakened with the absence of the USSR. Islamic radicalism, mixed with nukes is a very different story.

If the US did not intervene in 1979, a lot of good things would have happened – Afghanistan would have become an advanced nation. The problem arose there when the Communists tried to educate women. And they try to crush the resistance to it brutally. In retrospect, that brutal crushing seems better than what the Taliban offered. The Soviets would have developed a brutal dictator who would have kept the elements twisted and kept under the rug. Afghanistan might have become a modern nation, albeit a communist one. Jihad would not have spawned. Pakistan would have been denied the chance to build Islamic bombs and proliferate the nuke technology to rogue nations. Kashmir jihad would not have happened. In all we are talking about two million lives that would have lived. Osama Bin Laden would not have emerged. Al Qaeda, Taliban, LeT, and the A to Z of militant groups will not be there. ISI would not have become a rogue institution. Zia’s regime would not have survived and Pakistan would not have become so fundamentalistic. A lot would have happened, if the right choice was made. Will the world learn from all this?

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive

777xxx: “Does Reuters do a regular background check on its reporters and content writers to verify their credentials and integrity?”

If one spends time with the Pak military/ISI and sympathizes with their world view, they become influenced tremendously and will begin to sound just like their mentors. Look at some Americans who have converted to Islam and found their way to Al Qaeda. During the SL Tamil conflict, I have come across British women who acted and behaved like LTTE mouth pieces.

I’d recommend going to the Guardian and continue the discussions there. There is bias there too, at least once in a while one can see a rational article. Reuters blog here had begun to look like ISI’s propaganda outlet.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive

I agree with your write up in general, but the last sentence has marred an otherwise good write up.

The “unarmed man” was a terrorist, mass murderer who plotted bombing, and maiming unarmed civilians at their work places and in trains and homes. You make it sound like the “unarmed man” was Jesus Christ.

Posted by netizen | Report as abusive

actually, the us didnt drop pakistan and woo india immediately
Posted by buntyj

It is ridiculous to say only reason India is interested in US for economic reasons ALONE. Although, Paks make such delusional claims since reality is unberable for them.

Despite our differences, US and India are truly natural allies. US may have and has done many things wrong. But what it stands for matters more than its failures. Europeans and Canadians ridicule American society, what are the odds of any of them electing a President or PM with an African father?

India’s first PM having soft corner for communist Russia, played a role in things not starting well between the two.

Paks never had true anti-Communist or anti-Jihadi terror agenda. Their only alliance with US is to milk tons of money, weaponry and to jostle with big powers playing them against each other and hoping to undermine India.

Posted by netizen | Report as abusive

Russia lost the status of a super power and later its empire after its adventure in Afghanistan and the USA lost its position of the only super power after its intrusion in Afghanistan. These are the historic events for those who understand geo politics and a bit about the poker and knows when a player is licked. Today’s Russia under the new leadership is a world power in its own right and the USA under an afro american President is struggling to keep its status as a world power and is more or less satisfied with its illegal raids into sovereign countries in private villas and shooting down unarmed person under the assumption of eliminating a dangerous terorist. It has tacitly agreed to let China take over the role of a Super Power instead.
Neither Pakistan nor its arch enemy India have any genuine role to play in today’s world politics other than that which is allocated to them by the world community. Sooner or later Indian and Pakistan military are going to start their own adventure simply to prove that they are to be reckoned with? Sad fr the people in the subcontinent.
A word of two or more about Afghaistan, which is mainly made up of Pashtoons and has never been ruled by non Pashtoons. Kabul has never been and is unlikely to become Afghanistan! The people who are to overpower the Pashtoons have not been born yet nor are on the horizon in the near future. China in its own style is likely to declare its agreement to become the genuine super power, keeping strictly to its declared policy of non interearence in the domestic affairs of other sovereign Stats.

Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive

Netizen, I didn’t think I made him sound like anything…

He was a man who was unarmed, that was my point.
And we gave up that one chance to prove how just and moral we say we are, why??

Because it was more important to those who literally created his image and that of his network, to execute him in front of the world than to finally capture this amazing trophy and symbol of the victory of justice.

I don’t think he would have been a good man, but I don’t think he was anything like the boogyman he’d been made out to be.

If one thing is certain it’s that the US didn’t want the world to know the truth, so they went in there with direct orders to execute him no matter what. And then proceeded to lie to the world about what happened, to the extent that they tried to portray a huge gunbattle and Bin Laden using his wife as a human shield as he fired on his attackers. – Reality: There was not a single enemy shot fired, every man in the compound was executed in cold blood and a stealth chopper was lost due to equipment failure.

It makes you wonder if they are capable of lies this big, how often does it happen? Is “Al Queda” anything like what we are told by America? Because there certainly isn’t any proof it is….

Posted by brian-decree | Report as abusive

To imagine that today’s America is similar to the America which inspired the European youth is a mistake. Is today’s America capable to confront future beliggerent super powers? The answer would be certainly not, in military or moral force? Executing unarmed people without any trial or physical eidence of the bodies are the achievements of the current USA adminstration. Was this the reason for George W’s refusal to attend the party. Is America no longer going to share the European values for humans?

Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive

Any narrative on Pakistan, which is not India-centric, is meaningless. Every major development in Pakistan from Islamization of the country (whenever it began) to growth of jihadi culture to going nuclear to sponsoring terrorism to hating the US, has one common denominator: India.

Posted by Mortal1 | Report as abusive

How come no Pakistani has yet said that India is trying to encircle Pakistan by helping them build bridges and roads.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ar ticle2011599.ece?homepage=true

Can Pakistan give anything fruitful to Pashtoons other than using them as pawns and blinding their visions by constant talks of Islam under threat? Can Pakistan help Pashtoons live a good modern life instead of fooling them around?

Posted by 007XXX | Report as abusive


“Reality: There was not a single enemy shot fired, every man in the compound was executed in cold blood and a stealth chopper was lost due to equipment failure.”

Do you have any proof of this reality? If yes then share the proof for benefit and enlightenment of all. If no then you also stand in line with US liars who were so afraid of truth that they could not arrest an aged man(even if he was armed). Don’t tell me its your gut feeling or some super natural intuition or anything like that.

Posted by 007XXX | Report as abusive

How come no Pakistani has yet said that India is trying to encircle Pakistan by helping [Afghanistan] build bridges and roads.

Posted by 007XXX | Report as abusive


First, I have got my screen name issue resolved via Reuters helpdesk and only one screen name is assigned to me and that is 007XXX and NOT 777XXX. It took me a while to realise that you were responding to my opinion and not someone else. Would appreciate if you use my correct screen name while communicating with me. Thanks!

“Reuters blog here had begun to look like ISI’s propaganda outlet.”

I have had very high respect for Reuters and its content specially economic reporting content and therefore thought to explore other content on Reuters and I must say I am most disappointed with its political content. Reuters has just remained a propaganda site for US administration and its allies. I never expected a British company to go down to such low levels. May be its because of Reuters getting acquired by Thomson. These Americans are killing even the most respected media companies in world and converting them to propaganda outlets.

Posted by 007XXX | Report as abusive

A very good article by MJ Akbar in India today:

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/story/ us-forces-kill-osama-bin-laden-pakistan- trapped-in-web-of-lies/1/137294.html

He raises some important questions:

“The pincer squeezes from both directions when you lie. The truth is uncomplicated. A few simple housekeeping questions will unravel it. Osama’s youngest child, from his latest (Pakistani) wife, is two, and was therefore born in Abbottabad. Who were the doctors? Did his dozen children go to school or were they privately tutored? Who are the tutors? Did his wives visit relatives? Did the children never leave home? Where did they go? How did they get money for groceries? Not from a local bank account, surely? Who paid the electricity and water bills? In cash or cheque? Osama was a kidney patient, as Pervez Musharraf confirmed in 2002. How did he get medication? This is hardly an exhaustive list, but enough to prove that someone in power, most likely the ISI, gave Osama succour and protection. “

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive


Do I have any proof?? Um, yea the people who investigated the scene of the crime have stated that not a single enemy shot was fired…
Have you just not bothered to find out what investigators uncovered, or are you unwilling to believe it?

Also witnesses to the extrajudicial killings have testified to that effect.

Why are you asking ME for proof? Go out and find it yourself if you think you’re so clever…

How about you provide us with proof to the contrary?

Because you seem to have either a supernatural sense of intuition yourself, or are just too dumb to realise you shouldn’t trust the perpetrator’s account of the story.
Especially not a pathological liars account that changes 12 times in three days…

Posted by brian-decree | Report as abusive

Pakistan are Afghanistan are two unfortunate nations which are victim of power struggle in the region between the wolrd powers. The Afhagnistan got almost completely destroyed and Pakistan is partially.
Read Chalrie Wilsons War and you will know that Jihadis from all over the globe were brought, trained and used against USSR, as soon the USSR withdrew the US also disappeared but left war hardedned Jihadis in this part of the world.

Posted by Frank1234 | Report as abusive


Apart from the memoirs of Gen. K.M Arif, another good book written by Brig. Muhammad Yousaf, head of ISI’s Afghan Bureau from 1983-87 is “The Bear Trap”. According to him Pakistan had started the support of Mujahideen way before US came in. ISI ran the entire secret war, and the book is a good way to look at the Pakistani/ISI version of events.
Chapter 5 pg 78 (The Role of CIA). In short US/CIA regarded Afghanistan a place where America could be avenged for its defeat in Vietnam. They used Pakistan’s support, ISI’s help was sought and foreign fighters from Arab countries were encouraged to join the Jihad. What is the result today?

Posted by Umairpk | Report as abusive


After 1988 when the USSR withdrew its troops from Afghanistan, Pakistan had a choice to pursue development and growth. Zia Ul Haq was dead and gone too. Pakistan now complains about violation of its sovereignty. But it worked hard to destabilize Najibullah’s government that would have brought some stability to that country. Pakistan wanted its puppets ruling Afghanistan. So it helped Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and other puppets into taking him on. When it led to a stalemate, the ISI prepared and unleashed the Taliban. It also mixed in quite a few Pakistani army regulars. In the name of bringing stability to Afghanistan, Pakistan interfered with the natural settlement in Afghanistan and put the Taliban in place. Taliban brought in Al Qaeda. Look at where it has led to?

Instead of shutting down the Madrasa-Jihadist factory, ISI decided to expand the production and unleash the next Jihad into Kashmir. What has that led to? Pakistan is bankrupt and militants are blowing up Pakistan’s own rear end. And your country has tried hard to hide and preserve Al Qaeda and Taliban criminals at great cost and peril to your own people.

You are not willing to look at any of what your military leaders have done, while you are conveniently passing the buck to Americans. Your country made wrong choices and it is paying the price for investing in criminal acts. Kindly learn to accept the truth. Your country is not the victim here. It has become battered trying to victimize others.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive

one President wanted to get re-elected.
Posted by nbywardslog

What are you saying? If there is an election in 18 months, Osama should not be killed?

Keep entertaining us please.

Other amusing comment I hear is US economy is weak and that’s why this attack was launched. Very diingenuous arguments.

Should the conversation have gone like this?:

Mr.President, we think we got the MoFo. Waiting for your clearance to go in.

(tapping his chin)
No, they will accuse me of getting re-election boost or diverting the attention from economy. Let the MoFo continue releasing inspiring Jihadi terrorism videos to bomb subway trains, and fly air planes into buildings.

Posted by netizen | Report as abusive

I don’t think he would have been a good man, but I don’t think he was anything like the boogyman he’d been made out to be.
Posted by brian-decree


I remain unimpressed by this defence.

I am a Hindu Kafir. For 1400 years, our forefathers did not submit to brutality of the ideology of Osama.

I’m a dispensable dhimmi who needs to be enslaved or eliminated in the Islamic Caliphate of the Osama.

Naturally our perspectives differ.

Posted by netizen | Report as abusive

Enjoy this:

http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/13/extra-ext ra-mullah-omar-arrested-in-pakistan.html

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive


I was referring more to his network and the extent of his capabilities.

But I suppose if you are going to attack anyone the US would be preferable considering the sheer madness and death they have brought to the world in the last 50 years…

So I have no problems understanding why they are his enemies.

I disagree with all religious fanatics, especially Islamic and Jewish which seem to be the 2 most violent and sadistic.
Although Christian extremists in the US can be pretty bloodthirsty, I think more ignorant though…

Posted by brian-decree | Report as abusive

For the record though, it’s not a ‘defence’, as you say…

There’s just never been any evidence to proove that Al Queda really exists in a form even close to what the US would have us believe.

It’s just a fact, I mean today we find out the guy was in his underwear when he was executed… what were they saying yesterday, he may have had an explosive vest on??

That’s a pretty elaborate lie!

Posted by brian-decree | Report as abusive

Terrorism cannot be defeated by the laws and conventions of civilized society. Their atrocities cannot be proven in the usual sense often. When the strategy of terrorists is to remain nebulous,loose anonymous entities, the counter strategy is to firmly name them.

In India,s neighborhood Pakistan produces several terrorist snakes under different names to send to India. The strategy is deniability. We strictly talk about Lashkar-e-Taiba the jihadi terrorist wing of Pakistan Army. Loose units,loose names don’t matter to us.

About ur other comment, Yes majority of Indians receive the execution of Osama Terrorist with joy only. However, he wasn’t directly involved in terrorism in India.

The anti-India terrorists are comfortably living in Pakistan. As the wikileaks reveals terrorist attacks in India are planned by Pk Army. But paks are the ones bleeding with 1000 cuts. Enjoying what they wished for us.

Posted by netizen | Report as abusive

I don’t enter into the india/pakistan debate, I find it ridiculous im afraid… The people living in the disputed terrotory should have full choice of statehood, full stop.

Problem solved.

As for the terrorism argument, you have to understand that the way you think of terrorism is comical to those who don’t…

Terrorism isn’t something you defeat. It’s a propaganda concept that is unenforcable by any real laws because it is undefinable.

You’ll find that attempts to define ‘terrorism’ recently updated by most western countries all contain a variation of the clause ‘non-government group’, which exempts governments themselves from being able to commit ‘terrorism’, even if they perpetrate the exact same crime.

There is certainly nothing new about their tactics, and if you were to allow extrajudicial killing of people who kill civillians you’d soon find a lot of dead western presidents.

When it comes to blame, I’m a fan of older more simple logic…

The person or party responsible for killing the most civillians is the bigger ‘terrorist’… So in the middle east that would be the US by far, and in Palistine/Israel that would be Israel by far.

Simple, you want to save civillians, stop the person or party killing the most of them, whether you want to call them terrorists or not.

Posted by brian-decree | Report as abusive

As for the terrorism argument, you have to understand that the way you think of terrorism is comical to those who don’t…

Then there is no point for me to continue discussion. It is not “comical” matter for us.

It looks like you are a hard core Jihadi Terrorist sympathizer. In addition to the burden of fighting the terrorists, civilized society has to fight the like of you.

your understanding of IndiaPak is comical. Consistent with your other superficialities.

Posted by netizen | Report as abusive

You are addressing people who are atleast three hundred years behind in civilisation. This is not their fault, they were colonised for over two hudred years by the Brits. Most of them are catching up but theit intellect and way of life is still not compatable with the European civilisation, which benefitted from the early middle eastern civilistion.
No democracy can survive without the rule of law and is eventualy going to lead to anarchy. I am sure no one with a common sense desires this.

The rule of law has suffered much in the USA under George W and now under Obama, the son of a kenyan muslim, we are witnessing the emergence of the USA quite different from the values we cherish in Europe. Admittedly the parties of the right in Europe are rising once again and this is alarming and the majority do not want the repeat of what happened before the ww2! Obama is unlikely to win the next term with Osama trophy, if the deceased guy was in fact Osama. But the fall of America is unlikely to stop.

Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive

@brian-decree: “I don’t enter into the India/Pakistan debate, I find it ridiculous im afraid… The people living in the disputed territory should have full choice of statehood, full stop”.

That is very disingenuous way of saying. “Damn India/Pakistan, My problems with Terrorism be solved first”.
The roots of terrorism are in Pakistan which bred, nurtured, trained and safeguarded them for the purpose of making “even” with India at any cost with the hope of “killing handful of Indians”, even if it meant radicalizing their country, breeding intolerance and bring down their own state.
Since Pakistan cannot win a conventional war (Except for Rex Minor whose ranting make be believe it can do so), it perfected the art of perpetrating insurgencies at demographically sensitive spots on the Indian sub-continent. When Insurgent groups, whom we would rather call mercenaries, kill the security forces, government officials and other high value targets and melt in the demographically similar populations, its a nightmare for the security agencies to apprehend these terrorist from the homogeneous population.

The security agencies then just had to do the guess work to identifying the supporters of those terrorists, hunt them down and bring them to justice.And mistakes happen and few innocents are arrested. Innocents find themselves in crossfire and terrorists usually use them as human shields. This is where the opportunity lies with the terrorists who threaten the common people not to reveal their hideouts and identities. Caught between security forces and ruthless insurgents, the common people start hating both but can only display their anger against security forces of the democratic Government, which is frightened of the media and wants to safeguard its good image. The idea is to make the government impotent. The terrorists need not bother as their strength depends on the fear they can create among the people.

Over the time, they slowly and forcefully threaten political leaders and penetrate the civil society thoroughly making the insurgency even stronger. And no democratic Government will want to kill and maim people just for the sake of it. This is exactly Indians face in Kashmir (where militants are sent across the border), this is the same scenario what Americans face in Iraq (where Iran is the sponsor) and Afghanistan (where again Pakistan is the sponsor) or Russians in Chechnya and Rex’x friend china which faces the Uighur insurgency.
I cant react to Rex as he is known to be bigot in his own way, who calls Indians names and at the same time has the temerity to say about virtuous European values without realizing that tolerance and respect of other’s ideas is the first and foremost value one should inculcate.
If you still believe terrorism is comic and not serious stuff or has some other cause based on victimization, remember not every poor guy becomes a terrorist and your lack of clarity on such matters make us believe you are either an apologist to terrorism or that fifth columnist.we’d like to see your point though clearly.

Posted by sensiblepatriot | Report as abusive

“the people who investigated the scene of the crime have stated that not a single enemy shot was fired…
Have you just not bothered to find out what investigators uncovered, or are you unwilling to believe it?”

Are you saying that Pakistanis are better liars than Americans and therefore believe them?? Sorry I cannot.

If party killing most is terrorist then in India/Pakistan its Pakistan by far. People can be given statehood only if both the occupiers agree. Indian foreign ministry has issued a statement to that effect long ago, now where is same will on Pak side?? Mr. Rex?? I respect your opinion but choose to disagree with it.

Is calling people names simply because they don’t agree with your opinions is what your super advanced humanly religious and moral European civilization all about??

Posted by 007XXX | Report as abusive

“the people who investigated the scene of the crime have stated that not a single enemy shot was fired…
Have you just not bothered to find out what investigators uncovered, or are you unwilling to believe it?”

Does the report also not say that the compound was fortified and there were weapons and firearms inside. Are you saying that Pakistanis are better liars than Americans and therefore believe them?? Sorry I cannot.

If party killing most is terrorist then in India/Pakistan its Pakistan by far. People can be given statehood only if both the occupiers agree. Indian foreign ministry has issued a statement to that effect long ago, now where is same will on Pakistan side?? Mr. Rex?? I respect your opinion but choose to disagree with it.

Is calling people names simply because they don’t agree with your opinions is what your super advanced humanly religious and moral European civilization all about?? BTW all the world is witnessing the humanity and generosity extended to Greeks by Germans. Thanks to whatever Gods YOU follow that I am not European.

Posted by 007XXX | Report as abusive

As I said… I dont enter into the debate on Kashmir, it’s ridiculous. My views on this could not be more clear, and I have no bias one way or the other.

My views on terrorism couldn’t be more clear either.
As I said, it’s a propaganda concept states use to condemn rebellious minorities.

If you are confused on this, or think I find people dying comical than that merely highlights the fact that your view on terrorism is comical…

You’ve taken the bait.

So tell me, is it: a) the fact that civillians are being blown up that makes terrorism the henous crime it is???


b) the fact that it is being done by a non-state group?

Because if you chose the logical answer (a), then that means that all we find horrendous and offensive about ‘terrorism’, we should find equally horrendous and offensive about any situation a civillian is killed by a bomb.

And when you add up the number of civillians killed by bombs you start to realise that there are much worse things than ‘terrorism’ out there…


Well now that you mention it, yes Pakistanis are better liars than the US. But obviously it’s hard to win a lying contest when you completely change your story 27 times in a week..

I suspect your ability to analyse information impartially has been compromised.

Posted by brian-decree | Report as abusive

It is high time Americans stop the folly of pumping in so much aid money to support Terrorists.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/0 5/16/its-all-your-money-us-aid-pakistan

More than $20 billion has been given to Pakistan since Sept. 11, 2001. President Obama is proposing almost $3 billion in aid for the supposed ally in the War on Terror for fiscal year 2012. That includes:

– $1.6 billion for police and military;

– $150 million for what the State Department calls “good government and democracy building”;

– $122 million for health, AIDS and “family planning”;

– $145 million for education.

The rest goes to economic development and humanitarian assistance.

Despite all of the aid given to Pakistan, polls show the country has a negative view of the U.S. A 2010 BBC poll found that 52 percent of Pakistanis don’t like the U.S. A majority oppose U.S. drone strikes against the Taliban, and the Pakistani Parliament on Saturday

Now with the recent discovery and death of Usama bin Laden, some U.S. lawmakers are questioning why we continue to support the nation that may have harboring the most wanted terrorist.

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher(R-Cal), who serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has introduced a bill to cut off aid completely. Rohrabacher believes the discovery of bin Laden’s compound is proof that Pakistan’s leaders have been enabling al Qaida and the Taliban.

“ They’ve been arming these people to kill our troops,” said Rohrabacher. “They nuzzle up to communist China, they’ve been building nukes at our expense and now we know they have been giving aid and comfort to Usama bin Laden.”

Rohrabacher says continuing to aid Pakistan makes the U.S. look foolish.

Posted by netizen | Report as abusive