It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Secured Support From Pakistan by Threatening to Bomb

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   
A CBS special to be aired Sunday on "60 Minutes" will feature an interview with Pakistani Leader Pervez Musharraf and will reveal the details of a shocking conversation between his intelligence director and Richard Armitage. Prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, the Pakistani ambassador was consulted by Armitage, the US deputy secretary of state. "Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age", he allegedly should have said to the Pakistani intelligence director. "I think it was a very rude remark", Musharraf tells "60 Minutes".

 



news.bbc.co.uk
Musharraf is now in Washington and is due to meet George Bush in the White House on Friday.

The Pakistani leader said he reacted to the threat in a responsible way.

"One has to think and take actions in the interest of the nation, and that's what I did."

Before the September 11, 2001 attacks, Pakistan was one of only a few countries to maintain relations with the Taliban and many Pakistanis were sympathetic with the neighbouring Islamic state.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


If the statement is true, and it appears to be, it's a violation of any diplomatic code, an abuse of any rules of conduct. It is simply shocking.

I for myself never had any high thoughts concerning US foreign policy. But I never thought it to be that low. It's gunslinger diplomacy only gangsters worthy. The true face of the ruling administration in Washington revealed.

It shall be interesting to see what Musharraf have to tell George "double trouble" Bush, when they meet today in Washington. If we are to know.


Related News Links:
english.aljazeera.net
today.reuters.com
news.independent.co.uk

[edit on 22/9/06 by khunmoon]




posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I think most people in the UK know that Pakistan is a fertile ground for the recruitment and training of terrorists. So, if they need some pressure putting on them to comply, so what? At least they know where they stand.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I have doubts those exact words were used but I don't have a doubt that the message wasn't the same regardless, and I'm all for it, it worked. It may be shocking to you but more interesting things have been said between nations throughout history. Immediately after 9/11 this sort of thing needed to be said to those fence sitters tipping on the Al-Qaeda side.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
perhaps not the best thing to say to a nation such as pakistan? I mean don't they have those things called nuclear weapons? Just a thought.

[edit on 22-9-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   
ok you could have just PM'd me the mistake I made. And don't they STILL have nuclear weapons. What a waste of a post.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Grim, yeah they do, and...?

Pakistan made the right decision as far as I'm concerned, they are getting aid from the US and helping us out, to the extent that they can that is. For the time being they have a diplomatic and military "alliance" with the US.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   


It shall be interesting to see what Musharraf have to tell George "double trouble" Bush, when they meet today in Washington. If we are to know.


Didn't you hear his response the question in the White House? He basically said "buy my book being published by Simon & Schuster to find out!"




posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   
its not about the choice they made, Im talking about the threat we made. I dont think its smart saying "we will bomb the crap out of you" to a known nuclear nation.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Anyone else notice when George on stand with pakistani president when he mentioned the "We bomb you back to the Stone Age Insult" he laughed and tried his best to hold it in



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

"we will bomb the crap out of you" to a known nuclear nation.


I see nothing wrong with saying this to Pakistan, using nuclear weapons against the US is automatic suicide, and Musharraf is not that type, his actions show he considers self preservation much more important. And Pakistan can't reach the CONUS with nuclear weapons even if they wanted to.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   
simply saying "well we can bully them because it would be suicide" is a suicidal attitude in the end, because you aren't making any "Allies" like you think. You can call pakistan and america allies, but they aren't and never will be so long as you go by trying to make allies with threats.

Allies aren't suppose to be secretly plotting your downfall with your enemies, which you could garentee will happen when you make "allies" by telling them you will bomb them to hell. You want allies that wont sneak attack you with your enemy when the fighting really gets underway, which it hasn't yet. When the war on terror is on your streets, which is exactly where it headed one way or another, you want allies that aren't trying to stab you in the back.

My point is, making allies like this is how the phrase "who needs enemies when you have friends like these" originated.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Compare Pakistan pre 9/11 with the one today and you can see that they are definitely an ally. I don't know what country you are comparing them to but considering we have pushed Pakistan about as far as we can without causing Musharraf to be overthrown I'd say we are getting a whole lot more out of this deal. If you reject all others because they aren't the next GB then fine, but I on the other hand would also take what I can get when I can get it. Like Pakistan or not, they are helping and they are contributing.

[edit on 22-9-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   
now what are you talking about? That has nothing to do with the fact if you have to tell a country your going to blow the crap out of them in order for them to be allies, maybe they shouldn't be your allie to begin with. If we have to force pakistan to be on our side with threats, maybe we shouldn't be siding with pakistan at all.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   
If Pakistan needed an incentive to join us, so be it, we are better off with them fighting on our side then fighting against us. Like I said take what you can get when you can get it, you are asking for too much.

[edit on 22-9-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
and when the time comes to stab us in the back effectively? You act as though we are the only nation that cannot be brought down. America isn't indestructable, especially with allies that are being threatened in order to stay on our side.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   
We all know the risk, if Musharraf is overthrown things will change in a hurry, nothing stays peachy forever. And if that happens and we could not get Pakistan back on our side then we would be forced to distance ourselves and go from there. However for now I am content with the status quo.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
listen. If iran gets attacked. There will be a massive muslim attack on america. Muslims fight along muslims always even if they live in different countires. Musharaf is only the figure head of pakistan. U can see by the existance of the taliban that pakistan doesnt rule pakistan



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I have doubts those exact words were used but I don't have a doubt that the message wasn't the same regardless, and I'm all for it, it worked.


Not really a surprise that you should be weighing in on the side of thuggishness.

The USG also threatened to "flush Ireland's economy down the toilet" if they didn't allow Shannon airport to be used as a staging/refuelling post preparing for the Iraq war. No doubt that was justified too in your eyes.

John Dean - former Nixon counsel - has an interesting book out called Conservatives Without Consciences which I think sums up a lot of what I see on this board. His thesis is that the Right in the US is becoming authoritairan, rather than conservative.


Acording to his findings, a vast majority of Conservatives are drawn into the Leader/Follower archetype, where the Leaders are considered infallable, and the loyalty of the Followers is completely unshakable. About "23% of the populace falls into the follower category" said Dean. "These people are impervious" to fact, rationality and reality. And their "Numbers are growing".


There's a review, plus links to a video and transcript of an interview with Dean, here.

Authoritairan personalities display the following tendencies (derived from Adorno, this is not a complete list) - source:


    [1]Conventionalism -- the tendency to accept and obey social conventions and the rules of authority figures; adherence to the traditional and accepted
    [2]Authoritarian Submission -- submission to authorities and authority figures
    [3]Authoritarian Aggression -- an aggressive attitude towards individuals or groups disliked by authorities; particularly those who threaten traditional values
    [4]Anti-Intraception -- rejection of the subjective, imaginative and aesthetic
    [5]Substitution and Stereotypy -- superstition, cliché, categorization and fatalistic determinism
    [6]Power and Toughness -- identification with those in power, excessive emphasis on socially advocated ego qualities
    [7]Destructiveness and Cynicism -- general hostility, putting others down


In an article on Right Wing Authoritarianism (source) there's a fascinating list of the problems that such personalities are likely to cause, and it's like a roll-call of the faults of the Bush administration. But bullying and fact-blindness, with a healthy dose of hypocrisy and self-righteousness, are the bottom line.

It could be a portrait of Dubya and his cohorts.

[edit on 22-9-2006 by rich23]

[edit on 22-9-2006 by rich23]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   
If you think about it this country was built for the purpose of creating an army to take over the world. They brought over black slaves and there letting mexicans into teh country and they always freely allow immigrants to come into the country. Then they tell them to join the army join the army join the army. And now they are tryign to take over the world. America is genius idea to create an army of stupid people to take over the world. LOL and you think the government gives a crap about us? we are white trash, we are 'n-word's, mexicans, chinese, japs, terrorists all fighting together for the "white skinned elite" they dont care if we die as long as them and they're white families are safe and the head of the governments are white they are happy. He didnt even stay for Chavez's speech. America is mostly hispanic why the hell did he leave and pay no respect. #n white racist



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Rich23

Wow, what an interesting post, too bad it has very little to do with the topic however. If I'm not mistaken you are from the UK correct? Just wondering...

[edit on 22-9-2006 by WestPoint23]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join