Stereotype V.0002 Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 I like how certain dictators that play ball with US foreign policy get the "look the other way" treatment (Pakistan, Korea, and Burma come to mind), but Saddam Hussein gets demonized because he didn't just take the US aid and do as he was told. How did burma get on that list? I don’t think bush and the military junta get along too great. Musharraf's only goal is self preservation at the top and that undermines American goals inside pakistan/the region more than they mirror our goals....like crackdowns on the democratic parties we support (PPP), refusing to crack down on militants or deny them safe haven, fucking up relations with Afghanistan, etc. He just knows how to say the right things to the American audience to keep his cash flow coming in. But at the same time he is better than the country breaking apart. It isn’t that simple where every country that gets some sort of aid from America, most of the world, is our puppet and is going to do our bidding, look at musharraf or Egypt arming Hamas. The one silver lining to this cloud is that in all likelihood Bush is NOT going to do the right thing and demand that the elections go on. He'll just keep sucking Musharraf's dick like he has been for all these years, and letting him do as he pleases. American pressure from the great warlord boosh is the only reason Bhutto and Sharif are back in the country, and it’s the only reasons elections were going to take place at all, so you and the bushinator are on the same page on that one. But assuming elections would be free and fair, which they wouldn’t, how would that be helpful? Half of Pakistanis support the taliban and al qaeda, and now the other half is going to be even more fragmented than before. Is a Taliban style govt with their al qaeda guests in charge of a country with nuclear weapons a good idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereotype V.0002 Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 As far as conspiracy theories go, I think the GRU was behind this...why not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 I didn't know that. Nor am I very shocked by it. I've been saying for YEARS that Pakistan has to be one of the WORST allies Bush could have picked...no offense to the Pakistani people, of course. Musharraf is a dirtbag, and is notorious for playing both ends off of the middle. Why would he treat the US any differently? yeah, because the United states has always proved to be the best of buddies to every ally it ever picked. All I have to say is...birds of a feather....flock together. they're all dirtbags. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shai_hulud Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 How did burma get on that list? I don’t think bush and the military junta get along too great. Musharraf's only goal is self preservation at the top and that undermines American goals inside pakistan/the region more than they mirror our goals....like crackdowns on the democratic parties we support (PPP), refusing to crack down on militants or deny them safe haven, fucking up relations with Afghanistan, etc. He just knows how to say the right things to the American audience to keep his cash flow coming in. But at the same time he is better than the country breaking apart. It isn’t that simple where every country that gets some sort of aid from America, most of the world, is our puppet and is going to do our bidding, look at musharraf or Egypt arming Hamas. American pressure from the great warlord boosh is the only reason Bhutto and Sharif are back in the country, and it’s the only reasons elections were going to take place at all, so you and the bushinator are on the same page on that one. But assuming elections would be free and fair, which they wouldn’t, how would that be helpful? Half of Pakistanis support the taliban and al qaeda, and now the other half is going to be even more fragmented than before. Is a Taliban style govt with their al qaeda guests in charge of a country with nuclear weapons a good idea? This is admittedly a very broad statement that I made. I'll try to elaborate on where I'm coming from, but it's just my jaded, cynical take on the situation. Burma has a lot of resources. Oil and heroin come to mind. Pakistan has...hmmm, heroin, as does Afghanistan. Say what you will about the US, Stereotype, but I believe the rumors about the government being involved in more than interdiction when it comes to the drug trade. That's just a for instance, I could go on about this...but, you get the point. As far as the second half, I don't think there's any good solution to the situation in Pakistan right now. It's a mess, and the fact that there's nuclear weapons involved is very frightening to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shai_hulud Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 yeah, because the United states has always proved to be the best of buddies to every ally it ever picked. All I have to say is...birds of a feather....flock together. they're all dirtbags. Couldn't have said it better, myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohnoone Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 fuck this looks bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viperface Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 I hear al qaeda denies responsibility. from bbc or euronews, cant remember which... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shai_hulud Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 I'm not surprised by Al Qaeda denying responsibility. I read a few preliminary reports that they CLAIMED responsibility at first, but...that would just be blowing up the spot for themselves. There's something else I never considered until last night, because it's so big and plain that it's easy to overlook. After fighting a worldwide guerilla war for the past ten years, Al Qaeda is probably strapped for cash, so most likely they are relying on the opium trade more than ever. That would HAVE to be covert, because the CIA is one of the main movers and shakers in that business. Don't be surprised to see shit start coming out about this in the years to come. We (the US) did it in Viet Nam, and we're still doing it in Mexico and Colombia. There's simply too much money sitting there for the CIA to not take notice and demand a cut. Is this aiding and abetting the enemy? It's really hard to say, because the older I get, the less black and white US foreign policy seems to be. People like Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noreiga were once our friends, after all...and there may be some whole other level of politics and back-room deals that we only can catch a glimpse of from time to time. I'm sure some people are going to start hitting me with the "conspiracy nut" stick, but look at COINTELPRO and what Frank Lucas was doing with Air America in the 1970s. Then think about what's going on now, and what is being made public...and it starts to look a lot more like history repeating itself, but under the aegis of the "war on terror". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 I'm not surprised by Al Qaeda denying responsibility. I read a few preliminary reports that they CLAIMED responsibility at first, but...that would just be blowing up the spot for themselves. There's something else I never considered until last night, because it's so big and plain that it's easy to overlook. After fighting a worldwide guerilla war for the past ten years, Al Qaeda is probably strapped for cash, so most likely they are relying on the opium trade more than ever. That would HAVE to be covert, because the CIA is one of the main movers and shakers in that business. Don't be surprised to see shit start coming out about this in the years to come. We (the US) did it in Viet Nam, and we're still doing it in Mexico and Colombia. There's simply too much money sitting there for the CIA to not take notice and demand a cut. Is this aiding and abetting the enemy? It's really hard to say, because the older I get, the less black and white US foreign policy seems to be. People like Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noreiga were once our friends, after all...and there may be some whole other level of politics and back-room deals that we only can catch a glimpse of from time to time. i just watched a documentary on that this very subject. we need a thread on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shai_hulud Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Isn't there a COINTELPRO thread? This shit is SO well documented...it's not even funny anymore. I heard anecdotally about a plane that was so full of cocaine and cash that it crashed on takeoff from a military base somewhere in the South. No flight plan, no reported fatalities or injuries, no corroboration from the base except for the dozen or so eyewitnesses that loaded the plane and watched it go down. :lol: You gotta love the CIA sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 yeah, that CIA plane was used in rendition flights. it's known that it was a CIA plane. had four hundred kilos i think. some wild shit. they are all up in it. like you said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shai_hulud Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lucas_%28drug_lord%29 Talk about baller status. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_america This is how he did it. It's pretty hard to imagine the CIA NOT getting involved in the Golden Triangle trade. Where I get stuck is where the Taliban and their zero-tolerance policy fits into this. I know Al Qaeda probably has no objections to where they get their funding, but it stands to reason that the Taliban hews to a much higher standard, I believe. Also, it could just be that if the money is laundered and it appeared to come from the ISI or Al Qaeda as opposed to the warlords who are directly involved in the opium trade, they wouldn't ask a bunch of questions as to the source. Lot of questions, but barely any answers. I think that more about this is going to come out after Bush is out of office and his staff gets granted immunity in exchange for testimony into incidents during his administration. If you think things are bad now, people...a lot of shit is going to start being made public in 2009. Then everyone from the top down across the political spectrum will be shocked and outraged. Just start now, by looking into the connections between Halliburton, Kellogg Browning Root, and Blackwater. Then imagine the CIA funding all of this via drug trafficking, and it starts to become a lot clearer that what's going on in the Middle East is not entirely about oil...it's also at least half about controlling the flow of drugs out of the main supplier of heroin in the world. I have a friend who is a drug counselor in San Francisco, and she told me in 2001 that there would be a huge increase in heroin use as a result of the Taliban being kicked out of power, because then there would be no checks against the opium trade in Afghanistan. I can safely and sadly say from first hand experience (personal use/addiction and watching friends die/get strung out) that she was right on the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poesia [ ] T Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 http://youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg Aired on 2nd November 2007,David Frost the presenter did not challenge her on her assertion (2:14) that Bin Laden was murdered, so maybe he was and the West has not announced it. It would make sense that the West would cover up such a truth, as Bin Laden is needed as a "bogeyman" to continue the farcical "War on Terror" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shitting Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Bhutto has an incredibly sleazy past, but one thing that can be said about her for sure is that she was incredibly tough especially taking into account her gender in the context of islam She was incredibly popular in Pakistan despite corruption allegation which a swiss investigation confirmed. I think if one good thing comes out her death it will be that she has been martyred against terrorism and al quaeda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=505152&in_page_id=1811 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 here are her killers http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3110018.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVERWURST* Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 It's looking likely that she was killed by a bullet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 What was the initial report? I was just hearing on FOX (I know) that a member of Al Qaeda shot her, then blew himself up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Video_The_most_conclusive_evidence_Bhutto_1230.html conclusive evidence, says channel 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shitting Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 does it really matter how exactly she died? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 does it really matter how exactly she died? people cant leave the coliseum yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dd5_1199179141 video of bhuto being shot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 special forces on standby to snatch pakistani nukes http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/foreign/display.var.1933388.0.Special_forces_on_standby_over_nuclear_threat.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.