Pakistan: okay, well, maybe our spies are linked to terrorists.
Yesterday saw a surprising disclosure* from our intelligence community that Pakistan’s spy agency, the ISI, was linked to radical Islamists who attacked the Indian embassy last month. It wasn’t just a few rogue agents, but instead official support deep within the ISI hierarchy.
Pakistan angrily denied the accusations yesterday. But by yesterday evening…well, their tune has changed a bit:
…by Friday evening, senior Pakistani officials were offering a more nuanced response to U.S. intelligence officials’ allegations of ISI complicity, which were first reported Thursday by the New York Times.
“There is no proof of ISI involvement” in the attack in Kabul, said Pakistani Information Minister Sherry Rehman, who is close to Prime Minister Yusaf Raza Gillani and accompanied him on an official visit to Washington this week.
But she added: “There are probably still individuals within the ISI who are ideologically sympathetic to the Taliban, and act on their own in ways that are not in convergence with the policies and interests of the government of Pakistan. . . . We need to identify these people and weed them out.”
They’re not the only ones in the ISI who need a bit of pruning. These guys really scare me, and I have to wonder when these ugly compromises will have become to ugly to continue.
Meanwhile in Britain, they’re starting to realize that many of the terrorists shooting at British soldiers in Afghanistan arrived there on a British passport:
Earlier this year, it was revealed that RAF Nimrod spyplanes monitoring Taliban radio signals in Afghanistan had heard militants speaking with Yorkshire and Midlands accents.
…
Disturbingly, Brig Butler suggested the traffic between Britain and Afghanistan may flow in both directions, with some British Muslims returning from the region and posing a domestic security threat.
But that’s OK–British law enforcement (second item) is ready to handle them.
*The content of the disclosure is not at all surprising–the fact that it was disclosed, is.
_______________
{Post by See-Dubya}
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Middle East Round up. « Chockblock’s blog
- Pakistan: okay, well, maybe our spies are linked to terrorists. « Thoughts Of A Conservative Christian
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Afghanistan, Terrorist attacks
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Founding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Doug Ross @ Journal
» BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Boston Globe Climate Beclownment SpectacularDoug Ross @ Journal
» 'Hope is fading fast' --- the T-ShirtRadio Equalizer
» Media Matters Admits Rush Didn't Make Key Racist RemarksDoug Ross @ Journal
» The CRU Climate Scam In 90 SecondsHot Air
» 3rd quarter GDP 2.8%, not 3.5%Mudville Gazette
» Threatswatch: US Embassy Denies Secret Eikenberry Talks With Taliban
The truth is that Pakistan not only won’t but can’t elliminate terrorist organizations on their soil.
They won’t crack down because they are afraid of a constituency of muslim terrorists who can and would wreak havok across the country.
The Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) has Taliban moles on its payroll, and cells run back across the Afghan border after re-grouping, thanks to the Pakistan regime. Any resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan can be directly attributed to terrorist groups operating carte blanche in Pakistan; abetted by a large portion of the Pakistani government, Army, and ISI.
Add Pakistan to the ‘axis of evil’.
If you need a weed whacker to take care of that, check out the latest offering from Craftsman.
What should we do about it? Invade Pakistan? Blame Democrats?
lgm,
It’s Barack who wants to invade Pakistan. Try reconciling that little tidbit of information with your post.
What’s this “we” stuff, buddy. There hasn’t been a democrat in 40 years that was willing to do anything about terrorism or our other enemies. Ha ha, good one.
I suggest we surrender.
Let’s change our flag from Red White and Blue, to white. Then start waving.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh wait a minute, I’m not a democrat.
Scratch that, let’s fight the enemy first. For as long as it takes.
The concern is valid, but in a phrase, it proves too much. Any on the ground intelligence in the middle east is going to involve really ugly compromises. The point is to always, always be suspicious, expect the worst, and double and triple check everything. The only question worth considering is: what are the alternatives? Or rephrasing: do the benefits outway the costs?
If there are better ways to do this, with less unacceptable trade-offs, then by all means go for it. We’re all open to ideas. Otherwise, let’s not be squeamish about this. Similar compromises, if you will, are made in urban police departments every day (e.g. with double and triple-crossing informants), and while the dangers are not as pronounced (few criminal drug dealers for example possess WMDs — yet), the difference is in degree, not in kind.
Been there,
So you mean, we act like adults, and understand that war is messy.
I’m with you, now if we could only get the dems heads out of the haze.
Every muslim country has its Bagdad Bob. Do any of them even know how to be truthful? It must be fun getting caught with their pants down.
As said above, it is only the messiah that has even suggested bombing Pakistan. Now THAT’S the kind of change we need in our leadership! LOL!
When Democrats do everything in their power to directly and indirectly help the terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere in their self destructive legislative efforts to make Bush look bad and ensure a Democrat win in November, I say, yes, blame the Democrats.
They are, after all, the first choice of terrorist organizations and dictators world wide.
You know, I totally missed the resemblance lgm has to Baghdad Bob! Good catch!
Think back to when what is now the American landscape had various tribes of natives located around it. Many of them were at war with each other. Some were freely crossing what are now borders with Canada and Mexico. Over and back for generations.
Now take a small handful of men from each of the tribes, put them together in a room and demand that they get along and not show any favoritism. How long would it take before results began to show?
The only thing that put an end to the tribal warfare on the American landscape was an external overpowering force bearing down on them over an extended period of time.
It’s unfortunate (for the U.S.) that in today’s world the American landscape (only a metaphor, people) is located in the Middle East on top of vast stores of crude oil to which we are addicted.
The Donk’s know this but continue to block drilling into our own stores of crude. I have yet to hear an intelligent, coherent reason for this stubbornness. If anyone knows the whereabouts of such a post please link to it.
I think I should clarify… we should do everything necessary to eliminate a threat. However, I felt it necessary to explain to lgm that his stance runs counter to “The One” whom he adores.
Hello people, Pakistan is not a enlightened forward thinking country they are about as 7th century as you can get. That being the case why would they be putting forward women as spokes mouths or diplomats? Purely for western consumption that’s all, a hey look at us we are just like you, to fool our dufus politicians and guvment officals. Lucky for the islamists they are dealing with a bunch of dummies, they would have never got away with what they have during any other time in our history. A real tribute to many of those who allegedly serve us today. Its all bologna part of the sneak jihad, know islam or know death.
Pakistan is better off as an ally, unless you want to make a full blown invasion and war with them. I guess you could get India to help. Then maybe China would like to come in against us, just for good measure.
You get the idea.
Even though when we went in to Afghanistan right close on the heels of 9-11, the Paki army and agents who were advising Taliban went out the back door, I support Pres. Bush’s co-opting Pakistan in the war on our side. Imperfect, but so far a very lucrative choice, IMHO.
BHO, OTOH, would seem to want to step his size 15 footprint all over the situation in Pakistan. Way to go, smart guy.
It does zero good to pressure Pakistan if they don’t remain our friends. Sorry, finesse and subtlety aren’t the strong suits of the oh so smart Democrats.
Incidentally, I remember the opposition of the liberal base towards going into Afghanistan right after 9-11. DOH!
This might sound a joke or crazy, but I sincerely mean it; either the U.S. or some international organization should hold a women’s referendum in Pakistan (or even Afghanistan too) on how women there feel about a 5th century political mentality taking over their country and lives. The women in that region need a severe heads-up on what they’re missing in the world and what’s being kept from them. Their attitude would be worth several battlions in the war against terror. I’d like to see billboards all over that region with split images of women living under radical Islam and under Western-type conditions. Islamic men — and terrorists — go home to wives, moms, and sisters, and if these women would start looking at their men more crossed-eyed it could only be a good thing.
James Greenidge
Queens NY
A spy? I haven’t heard that word since two convicted and executed spies–Ethyl and Julius Rosenberg were operating back in the USA last century.
You know the first swarm of islamists to come here during the 70’s were Pakistanis? Look what we have now going on in our country, keep looking at the world through the prism of 9-11 but don’t expect the rest of us to follow. When the nuclear warheads start going off with AQ Kahn’s fingerprints all over them there’s going to be some serious splainin to do.
The British tried to appease the Germans in the 30’s and the battle of Britain is what they got, you know, the, never have so many owed so much to so few, thank God for the few. We have already been down the road of allying with our enemies in WWII we defeated the Nazis, sure, but we were lucky, we walked the razors edge during the cold war. We did what we could to assist the Chinese against the Japanese and look where that got us. Care to play Russian/Chinese/islamist roulette again? If you sit down to dinner with the devil you better use a really long fork.
You hit the nail on the head James Greenige, we can for now hunt down as many as we can but only through the long term thorough discrediting of the ideology will we achieve a measure of victory. Its an abusive ideology the advocacy of abuse coming straight out of their scriptures put forth by their holy men. I occasionally watch a show where a renowned psychiatrist Dr. Stone analyses and rates on a scale of evil former serial killers, I couldn’t help noticing that they all had abusive histories, I figure the islamist ideology gets a 22 rating. Of corse if we did do what you suggest all heck would break loose.
Not sure what lgm is trying to intend here…but you are right…Barack’s the one who first mentioned about rightly invading Pakistan. Its nothing but an Islamic terrorist state.
I wish Bush had attacked Afghanistan and Pakistan insted of Afghanistan and Iraq.
You are right on just second half of statement in itself, not in the entire context…We don’t want “finesse and subtlety” against Islamic terrorists. Do you suggest we should have used the same “tactics” against Taliban in Afghanistan?
What kind of a person are you suggesting finesse against barbarian islamic terrorists? Are you a RINO?
Sounds like they have the same problem we do. Except we call our sympathizers MSM journalists and democratic congressmen.
This isn’t new, remember when these two were ejected from Afghanistan? Most don’t remember becase Bhutto was assassinated the same time period.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/28/politics.afghanistan
The above spin link from the Guardian, it was a misunderstanding this one below, They knew better. I have to think we have C.I.A. all over this part of the World and if these two were “innocent” they would have just have been escorted back out of this troubled Province. It isn’t like they got off at the wrong bus stop. They were deliberate. Helmand Provice where all the poppys grow.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/12/mil-071227-voa01.htm
Last one check out how much money he was traveling with and what he was caring on a flash disk..it was harmless, you know you go to the most dangerous province in Afghanistan, with suspect unauthorized behavior and the locals yokels got it all wrong, it was a misunderstanding
http://talibanization.blogspot.com/2007/12/expelled-eu-un-envoys-leave-afghanistan.html
I was born at night but I wasn’t born last night.
No! War is bad. We should treat this as a law enforcement problem and obtain a restraining order against the ISI.
Then we invade Haiti again! There wasn’t a good reason for it then, so let’s keep trying until we find one.
Muslims cannot help themselves. They are Hate Robots since they day they are born.
#19,
By finesse I mean the co-opting of Pakistan that we are now doing. Finesse is allying with Pakistan instead of declaring war against them, or an outright invasion (a la BHO’s past statement).
Pakistan is a mixed bag, with a govt. that verbally supports us, but a basketload of bad actors at every level.
Get it?
You’re right about terrorists needing the boot shoved all the way up. No negotiating with them.
Pressure them to act by isolating, killing, imprisoning, making fun of, extremists in their ranks. Ally them by getting cooperation, including allowing reasonable support for their military actions within their own borders.
Pakistan is a Moslem country, and so essentially opposed to US policies which are in the main anti-Moslem. Supporting action against bin Laden for 9/11 is one thing, but support for the overall Bush/neocon Crusade is an unrealistic expectation.
I have an idea that might solve the problem, let’s give them another $11 billion. /sarc
That seems to be GW’s answer to the “Pakistan Problem”.
LGM
Invading Pakistan was Obama’s idea, or um, that of his campaign machine that tells him what to say.
Blame the democrats? I blame certain liberals for a lot, but not this.
There really is not much you can do. Just keep pushing Musharaff to do something.