NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/09/20/alqaeda.pakistan.ap/index.html

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- Osama bin Laden will release a new message soon declaring war on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, al Qaeda announced Thursday.

The announcement of the upcoming message came as al Qaeda released a new video in which bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, boasted that the United States was being defeated in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places.

Officials in Pakistan confirmed Thursday that Musharraf, who also is Pakistan's military chief, would seek a second five-year term as president.

Speakers in the video promised more fighting in Afghanistan, North Africa and Sudan's Darfur region.

Al Qaeda wants to be busy busy busy. They also have a warped sense of humor to.

Maybe Pakistan will take them seriously then. Though probably not.

I have to say, this is a masterful campaign decision by Osama, the whole 'rebel in the wilderness' really gets him support from the lower-income bracket, the whole war-like appeal makes him a radical yet likable choice, Musharraf will be in for quite a tough election battle with Osama.

Let the battle begin!

I have to say, this is a masterful campaign decision by Osama, the whole 'rebel in the wilderness' really gets him support from the lower-income bracket, the whole war-like appeal makes him a radical yet likable choice, Musharraf will be in for quite a tough election battle with Osama.

Let the battle begin!

Why am I not surprised that you actually support this and just praised Osama?

I have to say, this is a masterful campaign decision by Osama, the whole 'rebel in the wilderness' really gets him support from the lower-income bracket, the whole war-like appeal makes him a radical yet likable choice, Musharraf will be in for quite a tough election battle with Osama.

Let the battle begin!

:p

Good. Maybe now Mushy will actually do something about him, other than just let him hang out in his country and do whatever the hell he wants.

Good. Maybe now Mushy will actually do something about him, other than just let him hang out in his country and do whatever the hell he wants.

Seems if you are hiding in a country you would not want to attack that country.

Is this an Audio or Video tape?

only video tapes are to be trusted by me.

Maybe if you clicked the link, you would have known that it was a video tape.

Is this an Audio or Video tape?

only video tapes are to be trusted by me.

Why am I not surprised that you actually support this and just praised Osama?

Because he's AP...talking to him is like trying to talk to Allen Colmes or Hannity...it's like talking to a wall...and he doesn't want people to think all muslims are radical drones...at least he gives me something to laugh at everyday

Maybe if you clicked the link, you would have known that it was a video tape.somedays are busier than others.

;)

Seems if you are hiding in a country you would not want to attack that country.

Yeah, you'd think so. Apparently not, though.

Good on UBL, this is one case I can sympathize with him on. Musharraf isn't anything but a brutal militaristic dictator that sucks on the teat of the US. He needs to be removed ASAP.

Good on UBL, this is one case I can sympathize with him on. Musharraf isn't anything but a brutal militaristic dictator that sucks on the teat of the US. He needs to be removed ASAP.

Yes, and in his place allow islamist radicals to gain control of Pakistan. What a splendid idea. :rolleyes:

Yes, and in his place allow islamist radicals to gain control of Pakistan. What a splendid idea. :rolleyes:

But then the U.S gets to invade.
Kind of a fun past-time.

-SNIP-the whole 'rebel in the wilderness' really gets him support from the lower-income bracket-SNIP!
LMAO
The "lower-income bracket" of what exactly? The people without tv and radio in Pakistan? "Bracket" LOL

Yes, and in his place allow islamist radicals to gain control of Pakistan. What a splendid idea. :rolleyes:

If thats what the people of Pakistan want, then good.

Besides I don't really buy into the islamic radical idea anymore. Just empty rhetoric painting another people as backwards and barbaric, because they don't agree with our ideas. I don't think dehumanizing them will make the situation any better.

Yes, and in his place allow islamist radicals to gain control of Pakistan. What a splendid idea. :rolleyes:

Well considering that at the beginning of september Musharraf handed control of waziristan to the taliban, I think that warning comes a little bit late.

And frankly, given the Waziristan accords OBL is as safe as houses up there now, and there is not a damn thing Musharraf can do about him. It's about time that the west stopped buying into this myth that Mussharraf has any control of the radical elements in Pakistan and just dumped him. After all, what's the worst thing that could happen? The Talibanization of pakistan's NW? That's already happened.

It's about time that the west stopped buying into this myth that Mussharraf has any control of the radical elements in Pakistan and just dumped him.

From what I understand he's struggling, but but he still has Pakistani Intelligence on his side keeping the situation from exploding. I wouldn't advocate simply removing Musharraf to see what happens. The "talibanisation" (as you say) of the country would make it a lot more dangerous than Iran or Afghanistan have ever been. Not to mention the consequences for the Pakistani people.

From what I understand he's struggling, but but he still has Pakistani Intelligence on his side keeping the situation from exploding. I wouldn't advocate simply removing Musharraf to see what happens. The "talibanisation" (as you say) of the country would make it a lot more dangerous than Iran or Afghanistan have ever been. Not to mention the consequences for the Pakistani people.

I don't advocate removing him. I'm just saying its a waste of time, money and weapons trying to prop him up. If he can work it out on his own, fine. If he can't he probably couldn't have anyway.

I think it's over simplistic to say he has the ISI under his control as well. I think he has elements of it under his control, and I think there are elements in it that are actively plotting his downfall.

And I stand by saying how much worse could it be if Pakistan fell to the taliban? I'm sure the consequences for the pakistani people would be no worse that in plenty of other muslim countries, and that - apparently - has never been a reason to get involved.

True that. In Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al Qaeda didn't have access to nukes.

Want to see WWIII happen? Here it comes, DO SOMETHING!!!

Maybe Pakistan will take them seriously then. Though probably not.

Definitely not.

Musharraf (and the army establishment) will not go after AQ as forcefully as people here want to. Simply because, he will also have to go after taliban which he needs as a hedge in Afghanistan and also the anti-Indian jihadi orgs like L-e-T and J-e-M etc - which also he cannot do because he needs them too.

They will retreat or make a show of fighting but will look to maintain the status quo. After all, if not for taliban, they will lose Afghanistan to India and Iran and if not for L-e-T, J-e-M, India will completely ignore Pakistan.

Maybe if you clicked the link, you would have known that it was a video tape.are you sure?

And I stand by saying how much worse could it be if Pakistan fell to the taliban? I'm sure the consequences for the pakistani people would be no worse that in plenty of other muslim countries, and that - apparently - has never been a reason to get involved.

I'm fairly certain Musharraf has a tight control over Pakistan's nuclear facilities and missiles though. If he goes, and the Taliban seize them, things might get a little sticky. Kabul first, or whatever tasty target is handy for immediate range strike. And from there? Who knows?

Because he's AP...talking to him is like trying to talk to Allen Colmes or Hannity...it's like talking to a wall...and he doesn't want people to think all muslims are radical drones...at least he gives me something to laugh at everyday

In all fairness not all Muslims fit in that category. The ones who get the most airtime are the idiots who yell and scream. They make enough noise to mimic a large crowd. Kind of like the moral majority, which isn't really a majority.

In all fairness not all Muslims fit in that category. The ones who get the most airtime are the idiots who yell and scream. They make enough noise to mimic a large crowd. Kind of like the moral majority, which isn't really a majority.

I wasn't saying they all were...and I know they aren't I even have 3 friends who follow Islam...I was addressing strictly AP..who wants people to realize that all Muslims aren't radicals and yet he himself consistently praises radicalist events...and displays a level of ignorance which I find amazing for anyone with half a brain to have..he says one thing and then completely contradicts his own requests and "shoots himself in the foot" in the next line...thats what I end up laughing at...

are you sure?

Yes.

I wasn't saying they all were...and I know they aren't I even have 3 friends who follow Islam...I was addressing strictly AP..who wants people to realize that all Muslims aren't radicals and yet he himself consistently praises radicalist events...and displays a level of ignorance which I find amazing for anyone with half a brain to have..he says one thing and then completely contradicts his own requests and "shoots himself in the foot" in the next line...thats what I end up laughing at...

Ok, it looks like I misinterpreted what you meant. My foul.

If thats what the people of Pakistan want, then good.

Don't you know anything about democracy? The general rule is, especially for a poor, chaotic country like Pakistan, the majority of people are always at least some what misinformed and manipulated. The nationalist nonsensical rhetoric that the population buys into may offer all these final solution fantasies blah blah blah, but just because some may buy this trite doesn't mean they will like what they do once they are in power. Being voted in =/= good for the country, in fact AQ will be devastatingly terrible for Pakistan, do you think republicans are good for the US?


Be sides I don't really buy into the islamic radical idea anymore. Just empty rhetoric painting another people as backwards and barbaric, because they don't agree with our ideas. I don't think dehumanizing them will make the situation any better.

:rolleyes:

Ok, it looks like I misinterpreted what you meant. My foul.

Tis quite alright cheers...i suppose next time I will address strictly whomever I am talking to if such an instance arises again

I'm fairly certain Musharraf has a tight control over Pakistan's nuclear facilities and missiles though. If he goes, and the Taliban seize them, things might get a little sticky. Kabul first, or whatever tasty target is handy for immediate range strike. And from there? Who knows?

Pfft. It has been made abundantly clear that no-one really cares about nuclear proliferation. If the taliban don't get their grubby little mitts on them from pakistan, they'll get them from somewhere else eventually. We might as well live with it.

But then the U.S gets to invade.
Kind of a fun past-time.

This is actually a good point. Sorry to sound flippant, but Pakistan is being a real bitch in how shit she is at dealing with AQ, if AQ were to run Pakistan then the USA would be able to legitimately invade and remove them and boot them from that safe haven, assuming Iraq hasn't already become another safe haven. This is beneficial at least in a pragmatical sense.

Pfft. It has been made abundantly clear that no-one really cares about nuclear proliferation. If the taliban don't get their grubby little mitts on them from pakistan, they'll get them from somewhere else eventually. We might as well live with it.

Nah, it doesn't quite work that way. Musharraf is a state actor. He's got a country. He can't pack it up and squirrel it away like the Taliban can with most of its operations.

State actors with nuclear weapons aren't too much trouble on the MAD doctrine, since they know they'll be toasted in the exchange. Non state actors are a hell lot harder to contain since they don't have fixed central assets which are visible and vulnerable to counter strikes.

Nah, it doesn't quite work that way. Musharraf is a state actor. He's got a country. He can't pack it up and squirrel it away like the Taliban can with most of its operations.

State actors with nuclear weapons aren't too much trouble on the MAD doctrine, since they know they'll be toasted in the exchange. Non state actors are a hell lot harder to contain since they don't have fixed central assets which are visible and vulnerable to counter strikes.

My point was they'll eventually get them from somewhere. Why worry about Pakistan in particular?

This is actually a good point. Sorry to sound flippant, but Pakistan is being a real bitch in how shit she is at dealing with AQ, if AQ were to run Pakistan then the USA would be able to legitimately invade and remove them and boot them from that safe haven, assuming Iraq hasn't already become another safe haven. This is beneficial at least in a pragmatical sense.
However, the cynic in me would say that the USA would probably be unable to do so.

My point was they'll eventually get them from somewhere. Why worry about Pakistan in particular?

India's an unlikely source, Russia has a tight hold over theirs, and still use the nuclear football, so just nicking a warhead won't do any good. North Korea, well, their nuke was pretty pathetic, and given the existing conditions, are unlikely to go on the market anytime soon while they still need saber rattling cards. Europe? America? Not really going to work. They keep a tight hold on it. Did I miss anyone?

That's not to say that it's impossible for them to get it from one of those sources one day in the future, but the likeliest and easiest source is Pakistan in the foreseeable future if it goes under.

My point was they'll eventually get them from somewhere. Why worry about Pakistan in particular?

I'd worry about Pakistan in particular because its very politically unstable and has its fair share of radicals