Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

REUTERS: U.S. threatened to bomb Pakistan after 9/11: Musharraf

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
No DUplicitous DUpe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 01:25 PM
Original message
REUTERS: U.S. threatened to bomb Pakistan after 9/11: Musharraf
Edited on Thu Sep-21-06 01:28 PM by No DUplicitous DUpe
U.S. threatened to bomb Pakistan after 9/11: Musharraf
http://today.reuters.com/news/home.aspx

President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan said that after the September 11 attacks the United States threatened to bomb his country if it did not cooperate with America's war campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Full Article: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-09-21T182139Z_01_N21359284_RTRUKOC_0_US-PAKISTAN-USA-MUSHARRAF.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-3

Musharraf, in an interview with CBS news magazine show "60 Minutes" that will air Sunday, said the threat came from Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage and was given to Musharraf's intelligence director.

"The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age,'" Musharraf said.

"I think it was a very rude remark."



The Pakistani leader, whose remarks were distributed to the media by CBS, said he reacted to the threat in a responsible way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. Deflecting the obvious BushCo/Musharraf connections I see...
"No, really, we hate the guy. That's why we have him at the White House so often..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Exactly. Poor Pervez....
In fact, it goes even deeper than that. He goes to Washington on a regular basis, gets invited to state dinners.

Good Buddy George even forgave Pakistan an enormous debt....how much was it? $8 billion dollars? It was all written off.

Also, Bestest Buddy gave Pervez some MiG fighters he's been wanting.....free.

I wouldn't take this too seriously.....they still love each other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woodsprite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. Does this smell fishy to anyone but me? Am I giving Rove 2 much credit? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mom cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. I had the same nasty gut feeling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #2
25. Yep, it's tough talk.
To make it seem like the neocons are standing up to the country that's sheltering bin Laden.

Before the last election there was the "bring back Bin Laden's head in a box" sound-bite to deflect the criticism.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eugene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. Wow! Even for BushCo this is egregiously crude and dumb.
Edited on Thu Sep-21-06 01:37 PM by Eugene
This kind of a threat is more the reaction of a wounded
animal than any kind of rational policy.

K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No DUplicitous DUpe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. One link to home page...one to the article...
OK?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
6. Since Pakistan funded the 9/11 attacks
I guess it would have made more sense than Iraq. But whew! They made a deal. Also let Bin Laden and the senior Taliban flee. God Bless America!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Really, they actually threatened an 'enemy'
Pakistan has been financing and training state terrorism for decades, nuclear proliferation,
missile proliferation, nuclear testing and sabre rattling, Pakistan and Saudi belong
on the REAL axis of terrorism sponsors, and if they are threatened for that, then tough cookies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrokenBeyondRepair Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
7. yeah right..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
9. Could Marharraf be saying this for home consumption?
To make Pakistanis believe:
- he is not a Bush poodle.
- he had no choice but to cooperate with Bush.

I am not saying anything about the truth of the statement, just the motivation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Yeah, I think so.
Edited on Thu Sep-21-06 02:56 PM by closeupready
He also has a memoir coming out, so he has to keep people talking about him.

What'll he do for an encore? :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radioactive Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
10. quoting the psychotic general Curtis Lemay
Edited on Thu Sep-21-06 02:45 PM by Radioactive
"The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age,'" Musharraf said.

"They've got to draw in their horns and stop their aggression, or we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age." Gen. Curtis LeMay
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
11. Interesting that prior to the 2000 (s)election ...
Musharraf was the only Middle Eastern leader Boots could identify. And was quite proud that he could even pronounce the name correctly.

Why am I thinking this article is ... uhhh ... bizarre? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Copperred Donating Member (554 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
13. Pakistan Signs Peace with Taliban on Eve of Tragedy

Pakistan Signs Peace with Taliban on Eve of Tragedy
9/11: Profit Motives Help Bin Laden

By Ahmar Mustikhan

-------------

Tears fill eyes just to think about what happened that day.

The 9/11 attacks were the most horrendous attacks in history on U.S. soil, deadlier than Pearl Harbor. Five years after the deadly 9/11 attacks, terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden is still hiding in Pakistan, though President Bush had declared at that time, “Wanted Dead or Alive.” A news item on Fox Television network Thursday was asking “Pakistan: Friend or Foe?”

The fact that bin Laden is successfully eluding American justice clearly shows that with friends like Pakistan, the U.S. does not need any enemies. Bin Laden is not a western terrorist hiding in a dirty, obscure hotel room in Rome like one sees in the movies. At any given time, if he is in the remote tribal areas, which Pakistan coup leader General Pervez Musharraf says is out of bounds for his army, bin Laden is surrounded by a couple of hundred loyal guards. Pakistan army’s lie was exposed when they raided and killed a pro-U.S. secular tribal leader and popular former head of a state government in an even more remote area on August 26.

Bin Laden is well entrenched in Pakistan’s power orbit, spending millions in the county’s politics. The reason Pakistan is not handing him over dead or live is once that is done, Musharraf fears the U.S. will interest in his army-controlled regime.

At the time of 9/11 attacks, President Bush declared he considered countries who harbor terrorists as enemies of the U.S. Subsequently the U.S. forces removed the despicable Taliba’an regime in Kabul. The point that was lost to the U.S. public was the Taliba’an were nothing, but show boys of Pakistan’s intelligence service, named the Inter Services Intelligence, more infamous by its acronym I.S.I.

Before the U.S. launched its Afghanistan offensive, the Pakistanis were allowed to take planeloads of their spooks out of Afghanistan. No questions were ever asked of them. Two months later in spite of a U.S. dragnet, Bin Laden and top Al Qaeda leadership managed to flee Afghanistan into Pakistan amid heavy U.S. bombardment.

Five months after the 9/11, Wall Street Journal’s investigative journalist Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and his killers later released videotapes showing his throat being slit. His executioner was a Briton of Pakistani origin, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh. Sheikh was the same man who bankrolled the monies to the 9/11 terrorists in the U.S. As a search was launched, the killer was staying as a guest of a top security official.

Musharraf came on record to blame Pearl for his death. He said the slain journalist invited his death by being "over-inquisitive”!

One man, whose name has surfaced both in the 9/11 attacks and Pearl’s subsequent execution, got covered up was the then chief of Pakistan’s I.S.I., General Mehmud Ahmed. Pearl was actually trying to expose his role in the 9/11 attacks. Interestingly, the monies for the 9/11 terrorists were reportedly bankrolled to the terrorists from Pakistan under the General Ahmed’s instructions. General Ahmed was in the U.S. on September 11, 2001!

General Ahmed was among a handful of generals who catapulted Musharraf into power. When President Bush only wanted the Taliban to surrender bin Laden, Pakistan army sent a team of Muslim clerics to ask them to surrender bin Laden.

Under General Ahmed’s instruction, they were asking the Taliba’an to fight to the finish instead. The U.S. was furious to learn about this double-faced policy and Musharraf was forced to fire his mentor, General Ahmed.

It’s not only a question of bin Laden. An equally dangerous man is the father of the Islamic Bomb, Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan. Pakistan is the world’s only Islamic nuclear power. Dr Khan is sought by the U.S. for questioning in supplying nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea. The army generals have refused to hand him over to the U.S. fearing he would spill the beans on the percentage they got in kick-backs when he supplied the nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea.

Strangely enough General Musharraf gave a gift to the U.S. on the eve of the fifth anniversary by signing a ceasefire agreement with the Taliba’an and Al Qaeda forces in a remote tribal territory North Waziristan, bordering Afghanistan. This happened when the U.S. stepped up pressure on the Al Qaeda across the border inside Afghanistan. But in Kabul, General Musharraf declared he will resolutely fight the Al Qaeda.

Clearly, the words and deeds of the General contradict each another.

Pakistan is today the Al Qaeda headquarters. From time to time the army-run government there throws out one or two of the terrorists at the U.S. and Pakistan’s army generals’ lies find President Bush’s willing ear. In spite of all these dangers, arms sales and supplies to Pakistan continues, bringing a windfall of profit to the defense manufacturers. The question the U.S. administration might want to ask itself on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks is whether the profit interests of companies like Lockheed Martin and Bell Helicopters Textron, manufacturing F-16s and Cobra choppers respectively, that are supplied to Pakistan, are more important than the security interests of the U.S.?

About the author: Ahmar Mustikhan is a reporter with
St. Mary’s Today, Maryland.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Copperred Donating Member (554 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
14. Musharraf: Worse than a Mistake: Frederic Grare


http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3578&print=1

Worse than a Mistake
By Frederic Grare
August 2006

How Pervez Musharraf is endangering himself, Pakistan, and the war on terror.

-----------------------------------

The Bush administration does not know it yet, but Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf may have just outlived his usefulness. He has already failed to confront the Taliban fighters who have made Pakistan a staging area for their attacks in Afghanistan. He has delayed and postponed promises to shore up his country’s democratic freedoms. He has even walked away from symbolic pledges to remove his own military uniform. And last weekend, the Pakistani strongman may have finally tipped the scales too far. On his orders, Pakistani security forces killed Nawab Akbar Bugti, the tribal leader and former governor of Baluchistan. The elimination of the leader of one Pakistan’s most strategically important border regions threatens the country’s territorial integrity, the war on terror, and Musharraf’s own political future. In one deft stroke, Musharraf has made himself an ally no longer worth the effort.

On August 26, Bugti was killed by Pakistani forces in a firefight close to his mountain hide-out. For 60 years, Bugti was a Baluchi nationalist leader and a key figure in the various insurgencies that have gripped Pakistan’s largest and most mineral-rich province. The Baluchis feel they are exploited by a central government they view as a colonial vehicle for Pakistan’s most populous region, the Punjab. They want more political autonomy and a greater share of their region's lucrative gas revenues.

Bugti commanded a sizable force, and he has long been a thorn in Islamabad’s side. But, unlike other leaders in Pakistan’s unruly border areas, he always deployed his forces with politics in mind and an eye on the future. Just last year, he proposed, albeit unsuccessfully, a compromise peace based on a proposal from Pakistan’s Muslim League leadership. His own stature, combined with the fact that he was in charge of the tribe controlling most of Baluchistan's natural gas reserves, made him unacceptable to the military leadership—even though he was Islamabad’s most credible partner for peace in the region.

Some argue that because the insurgency is essentially tribal, the removal of this tribal leader cuts the head off the snake. But that is a fundamental misreading of the insurgency. A prolonged, low-intensity conflict is now likely. With Bugti’s death, the insurgency will be led by far more radical elements, many of whom, including the largest tribe in Baluchistan, the Marri, will settle for nothing less than independence.

Baluchistan’s strategic location, bordering Iran, Afghanistan, and the Arabian Sea, as well as its wealth of minerals and hydrocarbons, means that Baluchi independence will always be unacceptable to Islamabad. So, the army will be ordered to redouble its efforts to crush the insurgency. But the military will struggle to control a province representing some 43 percent of the country’s territory. More forces will likely be redeployed to the region from the Afghan border. Such a move will further thin the army’s presence along the Afghan border and weaken the help it can offer NATO in the fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda remnants.

Indeed, the army is already paving the way for a drawdown from the Afghan border, which would free up soldiers for Baluchistan. The Pakistani press reported several days ago that a truce is being negotiated with the Taliban in the frontier area of Waziristan. Such a move would result in the army's withdrawal from all border posts and effectively allow the Taliban to cross the border at will.

If the consequences of Bugti’s death on the ground are still difficult to predict, some of them are already apparent in the political arena. Every political party, even Musharraf’s own political allies, has condemned the killing. The division between the civilian leadership and the military is widening—a frightening trend in any country where the military has such a stranglehold on political life. If this rift continues to widen, the Pakistani military might demand that Musharraf, who is still simultaneously—although unconstitutionally—the army’s chief of staff, choose between his two positions.

The killing of Bugti has exposed a Pakistani president both unable to fulfill his commitments in the war on terror and only able to act decisively against his own people. Musharraf’s actions have reversed decades’ worth of slow progress toward national integration. Reporting restrictions will guarantee that we will not hear much from Baluchistan in the coming months. But the next thing we hear might well be an explosion that reverberates as far as Washington.

Frederic Grare is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Bugti was killed in a bombing, not a firefight. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MasonJar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
16. Bush/Musharraf connection. Bush did not even know who ran
Pakistan when asked during the campaign by a reporter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seasat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
18. If true, we threatened to bomb a nuclear power.
If we were to attempt to bomb Pakistan "back to the Stone Age", they would have launched their nukes. They would have had nothing to lose. While I don't think they are capable of reaching the US, they could have seriously messed up our allies in the region (what few there are). Either, as some have proposed, Musharraf is saying this to justify his cooperation with the US to his citizens or Shrub Inc made a seriously stupid threat that could have spelled disaster if we followed through with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
19. This sounds like bullshit
Edited on Thu Sep-21-06 09:24 PM by fujiyama
and at best they were empty threats.

The US has handled Pakistan with nothing but kiddie gloves - forgiving billions in debt, heaping billions more on them in military aid, agreeing to give them the F-16s, and finally turning a blind eye and keeping completely quiet on their ongoing sponsorship of terrorism and extremism, as well as proliferation of nuclear technology.

Musharraf is very slick though and he's played this administration like the fools they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GAspnes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
20. more for local than international consumption?

The General walks a fine line between supporting the U.S. and not offending his own folks too greatly. "I'm cooperating with the U.S. because I have to, and I'm doing it for you, my people."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
othermeans Donating Member (858 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
21. If you recall they had to send Powell to Turkey to smooth over the
remark made by some "diplomat" that the US would look kindly on a military overthrow of the Turkish government.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/turk-j02.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phrogman Donating Member (940 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 12:05 AM
Response to Original message
22. Pakistan's already living in the stone age....
what a fucking dump that country is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChavezSpeakstheTruth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Wow - how incredibly elitist of you to say that
you should be proud
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phrogman Donating Member (940 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. I'm a former seaman, I'm telling it like it is Pal.
Been to Karachi too many times. I've spent a lot of time in the third world, as a matter of fact I live in a developing country. But Pakistan, they're moving backwards, that place is bad.

Them and Bangladesh are the only countries I've ever been to where parents will deliberately cripple their kids so they can be a successful beggar. Trash and sewage on the streets downtown, Westerners are harassed and targeted for crime, almost all the officials are blatantly corrupt, child prostitutes and their pimps openly do business in public areas, most Americans have no idea such a place could exist on the same planet.

Its bad, its horrible there, and its getting worse.

Pakastan has earned its "dump" status, its a disgusting hellhole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChavezSpeakstheTruth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-23-06 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Don't ever call me pal again
Thank you very much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phrogman Donating Member (940 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-24-06 06:19 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Than please refrain from criticism of my opinions..
If you don't know what you're talking about.

Thank you very much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-22-06 07:14 AM
Response to Original message
24. IMO
the neocons leant on him to say this. This is for American consumption.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-24-06 06:38 AM
Response to Original message
29. PROOF!! Article from 2001 make reference to the STONE AGE threat
PROOF this threat was made back in 2001:

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views01/1012-02.htm

Published on Friday, October 12, 2001 in the Guardian of London

Terrorists Should Be Tried in Court
Bombing Civilians Will Only Lead to Further Atrocities

by Imran Khan

"The country that is worst affected by the US bombing of Afghanistan is Pakistan. President Musharraf was bluntly and arrogantly told that either we cooperate with the US or be considered its enemy and be prepared to be bombed into the stone age. For no fault of its own, Pakistan was put into this no-win situation."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC