Article

2006-01-18 India-Pakistan

Pakistan won't accept repeat of âCIA airstrikeâ

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2006-01-18 00:00|| || Front Page|| [7 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 What the PakiWakis will and won't "condone" is pretty fucking flexible, methinks.

Posted by .com 2006-01-18 02:44|| 2006-01-18 02:44|| Front Page Top

#2 .com

Let us split hairs here:

I believe the Pakis said "no more CIA strikes" and "down, down Bush, down, down USA."

But I didn't read any mention of their not accepting airstrikes from this:

B-1 Lancer Delivers Payload

Posted by The Angry Fliegerabwehrkanonen 2006-01-18 09:51|| http://www.calderonswirbelwind.blogspot.com]">[http://www.calderonswirbelwind.blogspot.com] 2006-01-18 09:51|| Front Page Top

#3 Pakistan won't accept repeat of âCIA airstrikeâ

Fine, next time make it a full Air Force carpet bombing. We've got an endless list of change-ups to deliver. Pakistan's ISI makes the Saudis look like trustworthy friends.

Posted by Zenster 2006-01-18 14:14|| 2006-01-18 14:14|| Front Page Top

#4 I would suggest they don't really have any choice in the matter.

Which begs the question as to why we're so ballsy there and so timid elsewhere.

Posted by Crusader 2006-01-18 18:00|| 2006-01-18 18:00|| Front Page Top

#5 Which begs the question as to why we're so ballsy there and so timid elsewhere.

Or, perhaps, why we are so open there and so secretive elsewhere. Are you quite certain our guys had nothing to do with the recent airplane crash in Iran that was full of Iranian generals? ;-)

Posted by trailing wife 2006-01-18 19:23|| 2006-01-18 19:23|| Front Page Top

#6 Which begs the question as to why we're so ballsy there and so timid elsewhere.

Because the Pakistani government was eyeballs deep in the 9/11 attacks and Musharraf knew if that if their involvement became general knowledge (i.e. covered by the major news networks), the US would be at war with Pakistan. For example the head of the ISI, Gen. Mehmood Ahmed, wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta via Ahmed Omar Sheikh. The same Ahmed Omar Sheikh that cut off Daniel Pearl's head because he was pursuing Pakistani involvement. I found it an interesting coincidence that Gen. Ahmed was on Capitol Hill the day of the attack and had ringside seats to watch it all. And that is why I think Flight 93 targetted the White House, not Congress.

Posted by ed 2006-01-18 19:53|| 2006-01-18 19:53|| Front Page Top

#7 BS for domestic consumption only. Embarrassing to Perv, et al that some of the bodies were "of interest" as the FBI sez of Hatfill....

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-01-18 21:08|| 2006-01-18 21:08|| Front Page Top

#8 Are you quite certain our guys had nothing to do with the recent airplane crash in Iran that was full of Iranian generals?

Actually, it is far more likely that the crash (and its sabotage) was a direct result of internal dissension or strife between Ahmadnejad and Kahmeini. If not that, there is still the problem of the Revolutionary Guard's recent refusal to fire upon crowds of Iranian demonstrators. Too bad these internecine squabbles aren't likely to balloon into total anarchy within Iran anytime soon.

Posted by Zenster 2006-01-18 21:09|| 2006-01-18 21:09|| Front Page Top

#9 OK, then. You guys make sure that Zawahiri is in the building BEFORE we fire on it and well be sure not to screw it up, OK?

Posted by Spoter Unatle4689 2006-01-18 21:37|| 2006-01-18 21:37|| Front Page Top

23:57 CaziFarkus
08:25 CaziFarkus
23:50 Shineper Sleremble4814
23:44 Zenster
23:34 badanov
23:30 Cheaderhead
23:30 badanov
23:26 Frank G
23:25 Zenster
23:22 Zenster
23:07 Desert Blondie
23:04 Desert Blondie
23:03 KBK
22:58 Desert Blondie
22:54 Redneck Jim
22:51 Barbara Skolaut
22:42 Barbara Skolaut
22:37 trailing wife
22:37 Zenster
22:34 trailing wife
22:28 Brett
22:26 trailing wife
22:23 Bomb-a-rama
22:18 trailing wife