Saturday, November 29, 2008

Obama's "attack Pakistan" flashback

Well, well, well in the wake of what amounts to the most convenient "terrorist attack" since 9/11, a little refresher is in order.

Who recalls this?
Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

Barack Obama, a leading Democrat candidate in the US presidential race, provoked anger yesterday by threatening to send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists — even without permission from that country’s Government.

The much vaunted surge?

US could OK Afghan "surge" before Obama takes office

WASHINGTON, Nov 25 (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates could approve plans for a major build-up of U.S. forces in Afghanistan before President-elect Barack Obama takes office on Jan. 20, officials say.

Mumbai attack and Obama’s plans for Afghanistan

What about Kashmir???

The dispute between India and Pakistan over, with an invaded and crushed Pakistan?
Is that one prize for India in this? Besides an upswing in arms, possibly more nukes to balance China's influence?

Who benefitted from this timely "new 9/11" ???


  1. It’s not really a question of who benefits by these actions but rather who does NOT benefit.
    Just think, what could Pakistan possibly hope to gain by this action? No ransoms were demanded, no hope of escape for these individuals, none, zero, zip. So where was the gain point? To further aggravate a country with the worlds fourth largest airforce, a country that is already at odds with Pakistan. Then to send in some nut cases to kill some 155 people in a city of 15 million, this makes no sense at all.

    No there is only one country that stands to gain and no it’s not necessarily the US as many of us already know who pulls the strings in America, although rest assured that the US will be getting it’s hands dirty in this little circus. Just look at the map, and remember this, Pakistan will if and when push comes to shove support Afghanistan, this of course cannot be tolerated as it will take but a very small push to topple the for the most part already beaten US military in the region. And let’s not forget that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Lets also not forget that although Afghanistan has no oil, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan do. The problem is that there is no way to get the oil from these nations without going through Afghanistan so if with Pakistan’s help Afghanistan should fall it would have all been for not.

    What better way to weaken or destroy a potential threat than to instigate a war with its very powerful neighbor?

    I firmly believe that in it’s own best interests Pakistan should make a very formal and very public statement stating that it had no part in this attack as it would have been of NO benefit to Pakistan.

    Also think of what would happen should Pakistan side with Iran in the upcoming war? Should Afghanistan fall and Pakistan sides with Iran, America’s and by dint Israel’s position in the Middle East would become very tenuous indeed. So you figure it out, Who stands to gain by this act of violence? and who stands to lose.

  2. Clearly Pakistan benefits in no way, shape or form from this attack.

    That was my first thought right off.

    And, I understand cleary the reference to knocking Pakistan off gaurd, (by a third party, or fourth or fifth or a combination of others) inflaming Pakistans larger neighbour.

    Definitley not in Pakistans interest.

    Even if Pakistan loudly denies it's involvement, if the finger of blame is to be pointed there so be it.
    I don't think it will make a difference.

    One thing I notice the media has been calling the ISI,
    powerful", alot

    "set up by its powerful spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)" Times Online

    "powerful spy service" NYT

    "ties to Pakistan's powerful intelligence agency" Toronto Star.

    Anyway, you get the idea?

    Somehow the ISI is suddenly powerful?

    In comparison to who? to what other country?

    Hasn't the ISI previously been heavily "influenced" by the US, Israel and Britian.

    Of course, what of the role of the ISI in 9/11, which was a subordinate one.

    Suddenly somehow the ISI became all powerful?
    Only in the world of spin, I guess?

  3. I like the thinking. It's the flipside of Cui Bono - Cui Non Bono. Excellent. I wish I'd thought of it.