It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Bhutto Killed=Pakistan Chaos=Nuke Hunt=Iran War

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:17 PM
I'm wondering how this turn of events in Pakistan may dovetail into the earlier events in Sept of the 'Barksdale Six' which all occurred at the same point as the Bay of Bengal naval exercises, APEC summit, and Bhutto and Sharif return from exile.

If, as hypothesised by several contributors the Barksdale thread, nuclear weapons each have a 'manufacturers fingerprint' that can be analysed post-detonation then it makes an invited/pre-emptive weapons seizure by US coalition forces all the more conspiritorially suspect and any rogue detonation or nuclear-hostage situation could be readily pinned on Islamic militant sypathiser factions within the Pakistani/ISI military forces and enable the US to subdue one of its largest radical-political and economical obstacles in the path to the final PNAC gameplan

[edit on 28-12-2007 by citizen smith]

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:51 PM
reply to post by Sentinel 1

As you say, there are always "buts" and your points are valid, so I won't do the tit for tat thing either.

I'll stand on my opinion that despite China's growing advantage, they have more to gain by waiting until later to make a move on us, but I can see why some would suspect differently and I can respect that.

(In fact, if memory serves, I do think the Defense Intelligence Agency said at some point in the mid-90s that by 2010, a war between America and China would result in a probable victory for China- though I dont necessarily think that was objective).

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Beachcoma
The situation on the ground is different than what you read on the news.

He is still power (at least in and around the urban centres) because of his cronies in the army and because he is in league with the US.

You raise outstanding points here and in the other thread, and I hope people will check out your link there.

I think you would agree however, as I said on the first page of this thread, Musharraf's political future depends on the solidarity of his army, and a political disturbance of this magnitude may upset the one bastion of stability that Pakistan has always had (the military).

I suspect that mutiny, if it happens, would begin with the paramilitary forces, creating an opportunity for junior officers in the region who didn't agree with the direction of their Joint Chiefs.

It would be bad enough for the military to lose too much cohesion and allow a further factioning of Pakistan, but in a nightmare scenario, things might get so ugly in the lower ranks that the Joint Chiefs have no choice but to stab Musharraf in the back.

And that of course is assuming that nobody gets the bright idea of assassinating loyalist generals. If I were a terrorist right now, I'd say forget about killing Musharraf or Nawaz- kill generals and put the military back in play.

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:45 PM
History repeats itself. This is pre Ferdinand assassination WW1 all over again. Remember those nukes will have US written all over them.
W Co 's gonna find a way to take Iran in these long long 12 mos left.
Excuse me, I feel my beef/bean burrito coming up. 'Don't get in my way, this is what happens."

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:52 PM

Originally posted by mikesingh
How so? Iran can never hope to do this as it is a majority Shia country, whereas Pakistan's population consists of just about 20% Shias.

I'm not saying that Iran will invade or try to prop up a Shia theocracy in Pakistan. I'm saying that given essentially three choices: An American puppet for a neighbor, A Sunni state for a neighbor, or an unknown outcome, it's conceivable that Iran would give mild but effective support to Sunni groups. Afterall, when it comes to Hamas, Shias and Sunnis have never had a problem funding a common goal, as long as they have nothing to lose by it.
The fact that such a move would secure Iran against a two-front war from the US and weaken a traditional rival (Iran remembers how ugly the early days of a revolution can be- when the Iranian revolution undermined their military, it almost cost them their country) makes it a matter of realpolitik.

Isolate Afghanistan?

Absolutely. Historically speaking, a successful Afghan state cannot exist without access to the sea. If Persia wants her former glory back, and a border with her friends in China and Russia, preserving a power vaccuum in central Asia until the time is right by propping up a weak, anti-western regime in Pakistan would be a very good idea.

Free nukes of its own? How?

Certainly not on purpose. I'm under no illusion that Pakistan will give Iran the nukes. I'm saying that there are nukes in Iran's back yard that they can't get to, and anything that loosens control over those nukes is a thin opportunity but still a meaningful bonus on top of the other advantages mentioned. It's also low on downside because if Sunni extremists get them, they still either get used on Israel or America most likely, or not used at all, which is breaking even at worst.

Easier said than done! The Americans are spread too thinly on the ground. For any operation of such magnitude, you need a combat ratio of at least 3:1.

I'm not necessarily talking about an Iraq style invasion. I'm thinking more along the lines of the following:
Pakistan's nukes go missing, and regardless of where they are, Bush sends a very short-lived raid into Iran by an Marine Expeditionary Unit, osstensibly targeted not at Iran but at terrorists in Iranian Baluchistan. The goal is to get Iran to kill American troops without America looking like the aggressor in the eyes of at least some Americans (Bush has just under 30% support, he needs 40%-50% to get away with action on Iran).

If that happens, Bush has options. He can just bomb the Iranian nuclear program and call it retaliation. **Or IF he's a complete psychopath** he can call up the reserves and institute an across the board stoploss, end troop rotation and put everyone in for the duration, and go into Iran with a light force intended not to occupy but to gut the Iranian military in the field and topple the government, creating anarchy (this could be accomplished with a lean mechanized force coming in via Pakistan supported by reservists from various MOS repurposed as infantry to secure a narrow line of supply, bypassing the Zagros and forcing the bulk of Iranian forces to move a long distance to the front under the guns of American airpower). He'll have to argue that the war powers clock doesn't start ticking till the first bomb falls, because congress will try to pull him out. The SCOTUS would deny cert. He'd be impeached and the Republicans will stall the trial until the end of his term to avoid a conviction. China would retaliate economically and we'd be on a course to armed conflict with them within the next 20 years. A power vaccuum would be preserved in Iran and Pakistan that would keep the region on ice while a Cold War redux was being set up, perhaps allowing America to revisit the region in 20 years or so to try and consolidate the gains that this war would leave open.

I'm not saying that will happen, in fact I'll be substantial sums of money that it won't happen. But it is one of the available scenarios and it would work, in a very very ugly and historically infamous fashion.

Needless to say, an Iranian campaign will be a logistical nightmare! Bush, I presume isn’t so foolish as to invade Iran with the available forces at his command at the present juncture.

Launching invasions with enough force to topple the enemy military but completely fail to consolidate any gains is Bush's calling card. His game seems to be not so much serving America's immediate interests as reviving old failures and creating power vaccuums, for someone (presumably America but maybe he serves a higher interest) to attempt to fill in the next generation.

That’s provided the US of A can invade and capture Iran. This is not possible in the near term,

Correct. I think it's about keeping anybody else from getting it so that it will be open later.

And what is meant by, ‘to check any future Chinese ambitions for westward expansion, not to mention the economic pressure it would put on China’, is not understood.

The Second Sino-Indian war provides a grim warning that allowing transportation infrastructure to be developed in Western China and central Asia gives China a previously absent ability to be a military force beyond the Himalayas.
If Central Asia is allowed to develop both poltical ties to China (including arrangements for the pre-positioning of Chinese hardware, god forbid) and meaningful infrastructure, that presents the possibility that in the future China would be able to exert military pressure in the Middle East that does not depend on her navy, thus strengthening China's bid to become a global power not merely in terms of soft power but also in military terms, which is important because hard power against 3rd world exporters of raw materials translates into soft power aginst 1st world nations.
Anarchy in central Asia provides a buffer zone that limits Sino-Russian cooperation in military affairs and reduces China's future ability to exert military pressure in the M.E.
The interruption of Iranian oil flow to China also exerts economic pressure on China

It's been a real pleasure Mike, thanks for the challenging thoughts.

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 06:02 PM
I mentioned this in another thread but copying it here:



Ms Bhutto stopped short of blaming the Government directly, saying that she had more to fear from unidentified members of a power structure that she described as allies of the �forces of militancy�.

allies of the forces of militancy?

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 06:17 PM
Oh woe the dreaded sunroof latch. I saw a supposed xray held up by Mushareff that looked like a 60 watt bulb in a bowl of jello, no structural anatomical features whatsoever proclaiming no shrapnel nor bullets. You fought the good fight Benadir, sleep with the angels tonight, the bad men will fall, they will beg your forgiveness. If only half as many had half your conviction.

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 06:22 PM
If half as many had half as many convictions, prisons would still be overcrowded.

The assassination is a negative development, but Bhutto was no saint. It amazing she and Musharraf didn't get along better in some senses.

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 07:38 PM

Rita Katz and S.I.T.E. are set to release yet another "aL-Qaeda" Bin Laden tape. Will the next bin Laden tape claim credit for the death of Bhutto or point the finger of blame on Iran?

Expect Bush to address the nation soon: We must bomb now!

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:22 PM
I think the taliban are certainly culprits for this one.........I think this will start a middle eastern power struggle and possibly war.

posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 04:01 AM
reply to post by The Vagabond

Spot on!
But a little more gen on this could help things a bit.

For starters, we need to be aware that the Pakistan army is not so cohesive as it was pre 90s. There is a sizable number of junior officers, some even of Brigadier rank that are hard core fundamentalists.

More so with the ISI, which has a nucleus of officers across the entire rank spectrum which are aligned to terror organizations like the Hizb ut-Tehrir (Party of Liberation), founded by the Jordanian cleric Taqiuddin an-Nabhani in 1953 and flourished in the UK and France. This party consists mostly of educated youth, one of which was a software engineer – the Glasgow suicide bomber, Kafeel Ahmed!

According to intelligence reports, cadres of the Hizb ut-Tehrir have infiltrated into the security services including the defense services. Most notable is their presence in the rank and file of Pakistan’s ISI. This is a sure recipe for disaster.

These Islamists are now suspected of aiding the assassination of Ms Bhutto, just as they are believed to have been involved in a string of recent bombings in Pakistan as well as the earlier failed attempts on the life of Musharraf.

The immediate aim of this terror organization is to establish a Muslim caliphate encompassing not only Pakistan, but all of South Asia including Afghanistan. With the Al Qaeda, the ultimate aim is to establish a world caliphate.

Any leader who is seen as a threat to achieving this goal will probably be eliminated. And that includes Nawaz Sharief and Musharraf himself! (You’d be surprised how secular he is!). It therefore comes about that the finger of suspicion points to Hizb ut-Tehrir, the fundamentalist organization which has infiltrated not only Pakistan’s ISI, but also the defense forces.

A coup against Musharraf is a possibility in the not too distant future by these radical elements in the security forces, which are fast gaining strength. And if that happens, the nightmare scenario which we all fear will finally begin to unfold – Pakistan’s nuclear assets in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists!

[edit on 30-12-2007 by mikesingh]

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 02:29 PM
In a wierd way the assassination of Bhutto will probably maintain the status quo in Pakistan and ensure peace.

The ISI work indendendently and i believe carried out the assassanation themselves, Musharraf has always been the military's puppet so any potential change in government would directly threaten their control.

Musharraf will probably win the next the next general election and the covert junta will maintaon real power.

Only my opinion obviously but that's what i think.

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in