14 replies to this topic

[HKK]

http://www.dawn.com/...ion-report.html

Abbottabad commission findings contradict US version: report


ISLAMABAD: A member of the high-level Pakistani Abbottabad commission tasked with detailing the May 2 incidents in Abbottabad that resulted in the killing of Osama bin Laden, has completed recording his findings, according to a BBC Urdu reportpublished on Thursday.
The findings are based on statements from bin Laden’s family, his neighbours, and the government officials who entered the area after the raid, said the report.
Questioning the American position on the raid, the details contradict, and are different from, the version of events described by the US. The findings will also be the first official version of the events from the Pakistani side.
A major question raised in the report is the finding that only a single bullet-casing and bullet-mark was found from the room which was allegedly filled with more than half a dozen armed companions of the former al Qaeda chief.
The bullet mark was found on a wall in bin Laden’s bedroom, the same room where he was killed. The mark is so high on the wall that it appears as if the man firing bullet was on his knees. The commission’s experts have concluded that this bullet caused bin Laden’s death, and possibly hit the wall after tearing through a part of his skull, adds the BBC report.
Other than this, no other bullet-casing or bullet-marks were found from the compound. However, the commission’s members found more than a dozen Klashnikov rifles – some less than a yard away from the dead bodies, adds the report.
The report raises the question that why did bin Laden’s companions not fire a single bullet at the US Marines, because the American version of events states that not a single soldier was hit. Now if no soldier was hit, and not even a single shot had gone astray — which was proved by the absence of bullet casings and marks — then why did Osama’s companions not fire a single bullet, the commission findings inquire.

[HKK]

It is not a rocket science. OBL already dead long ago. It was all drama, topay bazi which involved those traitors from within who would like Pakistan to become a liberal fascist state under the thumb of the axis of evil (us-india-israel).

[HKK]

saber56, on 15 March 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

As much as I hate the Bhutto's, Zia was also a scum bag, because of whom the Pakistan economy went from bad to worse in his reign. His "sharia" laws brought even more misery from what I've heard. He was a product of the CIA, to run a coup against Bhutto (pretty much like the Shah of Iran against the free government of Mosadeh of Iran, and the Ayotollahs after them). Anyways, his own ISI killed him, based on intel I got from a gentleman whose brother was in the ISI, because they sold some shoulder fired guided missiles (cannot recall what types they were) that were supplied by the US, and without the knowledge of Zia. Therefore, in order to not get into trouble they finished him off. That explosion in the ammunition depo in the 80's in Karachi was also a work of ISI to cover up their covert missile sales to Iran.

What you wrote above got to do with the discussion?

Zia upheld Pakistan's honor and diginit by giving bamboo up anyone ********** who challanged Pakistan, be it india, soviet union, iran etc etc. That is good enough for me.

[sobank]

lol. one thing is what it has to do anything with zia. And every other day a new theory of who killed zia flies around. So thanks for a new addition. And finally, your resources forgot to tell you that it was not karachi. It was rawalpindi where the Aujri camp was blasted. And the reason behind that was the army was taking the stinger missiles and putting them away for themselves or giving it to people they wanted to in afghanistan. When americans wanted to audit their supply, they blew up the weapon store saying that all the supplies were lost.

Now you tell me, you cant name the missile, you are quoting the wrong city (equivalent of saying that 911 was in los angeles and not in NY), and the reason that is also well known. Junayjo, and many other politician believed that junayjo was removed from his chair as he was pushing to reveal the story and zia removed him.

anyways, with all that wrong, missinformed at one point and or no knowledge at other, you want people to trust you or your source.  Or is it now going to be "hey I have right of opinion" thing. According to some idiot Ishrat Hussain:

Quote

Pakistan was one of the few developing countries that had achieved an
average growth rate of over 5 percent over a four decade period ending 1988-89.
Consequently, the incidence of poverty had declined from 40 percent to 18
percent by the end of the 1980s.

funny everything goes in gutter after the death of zia. Which I would like to call shahadat but then again you people will say that i am biased. And by the way, your tank development, missiles development and jf-17 are all roooted into zia's time. Either they were initialized or their base programs were set up in zia time.

Frankly, I am not writing this to favor zia. I am writing this so that next time you feel the urge of writing something, atleast have your facts straighten up, even if you have to do it superficially.

Please do not give a rebutal. I am not interested in replying to it. My point is about the way you made the post and thats all.

[akthus]

Some Pakistani leaders have taken bribes to help push the story that Bin Laden was Killed in 2011.

As usual the western and indeed our own media repeats the lies so much that people begin to think that it is a fact.

To date no evidence given or shown suggests that Bin Laden was killed at all. Just like 911 there is a lot of talk and lies but no actual evidence.

[HKK]

saber56, on 19 March 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

EVERYTHING. From a "self-inflicted wound" or "false flag attack" of 9/11 as compared to the initial start of the war which was ISI helping out Brezinski along with a couple of "jihadis" attack two Russian outposts at the Northern border starting an unnecessary war (except for the financiers and Anglo-American British oligarchy who own the Bank of England and World Bank). History is repeating itself from Zia to Musharraf, then PPP coming to power later to add insult to injury, much supported by the grassroot mainly "educated" idiots who voted them in.



   Let's first start a war and then protect it's "honor". Works EVERYTIME . Worked for the corrupt leadership in Argentina too with their Falklands War. And I think Zia would be wrong about it being a threat if Soviets had won seeing the Chinese were there to aid us when needed. So the Soviets could not use the Indians against Pakistan, seeing China is North of them.

Of course, Pakistan did get a couple nice rusty F-16's only for them to sanctioned later on. Bunch of "n!gger f*ucks" and "a$$ wipes" top to bottom put in simple words, then and now.

Ah, so we are talking about original sin. Lets blame Adam for eating that god forbidden fruit, otherwise, we should all be happy living in paradise enjoying the bounties. Intelleculism at its highest order!!


Afghanistan, long before Zia was already under heavy Soviet influence, they used to rule it by proxy, just as yanks are doing now. It was not by choice but absolute necessaity that Zia had to intervine in Afghanstan when Soviets physically rolled in. And when one add india to equation, a soviet ally, it was imparative to stop soviets there and then before it was too late. It was not Zia's fault that Liuaqat Ali Khan put Pakistan firmly in american camp, which pissed of the ruskies. It was not Zia's fault that yanks were flying U2s from peshawar to spy over Soviet airspace. Soviets were our sworn enemies and they showed it during the 71 war. These are all Pre-Zia events/facts. Just try to understand history in its true prespective , it may enlighten you.

Having lived in Pakistan during Zia time, I can safely say that Pakistan under him was thousand times better then its present state. It is not his fault that his vision and policies were not followed after him.


On a separate note, do you have anything to say related to the topic?

[HKK]

sobank, on 17 March 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

lol. one thing is what it has to do anything with zia. And every other day a new theory of who killed zia flies around. So thanks for a new addition. And finally, your resources forgot to tell you that it was not karachi. It was rawalpindi where the Aujri camp was blasted. And the reason behind that was the army was taking the stinger missiles and putting them away for themselves or giving it to people they wanted to in afghanistan. When americans wanted to audit their supply, they blew up the weapon store saying that all the supplies were lost.

Now you tell me, you cant name the missile, you are quoting the wrong city (equivalent of saying that 911 was in los angeles and not in NY), and the reason that is also well known. Junayjo, and many other politician believed that junayjo was removed from his chair as he was pushing to reveal the story and zia removed him.

anyways, with all that wrong, missinformed at one point and or no knowledge at other, you want people to trust you or your source.  Or is it now going to be "hey I have right of opinion" thing. According to some idiot Ishrat Hussain:


funny everything goes in gutter after the death of zia. Which I would like to call shahadat but then again you people will say that i am biased. And by the way, your tank development, missiles development and jf-17 are all roooted into zia's time. Either they were initialized or their base programs were set up in zia time.

Frankly, I am not writing this to favor zia. I am writing this so that next time you feel the urge of writing something, atleast have your facts straighten up, even if you have to do it superficially.

Please do not give a rebutal. I am not interested in replying to it. My point is about the way you made the post and thats all.

These armchairs warriors dont know a jack about Zia's Pakistan let alone the man himself.

Ojri Camp in Karachi!! I was there in my school, when those rockets where flying all over Rawalpindi and Islamabad. Few hit our school building right infront of my eyes. Cant forget those moment. Had a preview of how wars look like. But thanks to Allah, those rockets were not fused.

[Skull-Buster]

saber56, on 19 March 2012 - 06:23 AM, said:

Look friend, it was around year 2000 when I met the individual and talked to him. I pretty much forgot much of the story, except for the fact that the ammo depo blast and the Zia's assasination was work of the ISI (who yes many of them were bribed, but ISI had it's own reason they could not afford to have Zia alive). So I don't remember all the details including of the ammo depot tragedy as it was long time back. Nevertheless, the fact that ISI was heavily behind it I remember. And yes, I forgot the type of missile they were supplying to Iran. He told me the name, I can't remember. They were supplied by the US for the Mujahideens fighting the Soviets.

P.S.: Thank you for telling about the tank developments and the JF-17 projects started under Zia. However, economically and socially, things got bad to worse in the decade of the 80's. You can also see that by the steady devaluation of the Pakistani Rupee against other currencies as well.

How in the world did things go from bad to worse, economically, during Zia's time? Please enlighten us with figures.

Just to let you know, Zia's term in power saw the highest and most consistent GDP growth in Pakistan's entire history. Throughout Zia's time in power, GDP grew at an average of 6.4%. Ayub Khan and Pervez Musharraf are often credited with economic recovery, but the GDP growth in their terms was 6.2% and 4.9% on average respectively, which as you can see is less than that of what we witnessed in Zia's time. There has not been a better economic period for Pakistan than Zia's, not before him and not after.

http://upload.wikime...growth_rate.svg

[atomicwaste12]

Zia was a hypocrite and a liar and killed a man elected by the people to protect his own neck when he took over illegally in extremely dubious circumstances. The charges against Bhutto were trumped up and even the supreme court with hand picked judges had great difficulty in coming up with a half believable verdict. This bastard had no honour slept with that american woman who was helping him vis-a-vis the largesse that was shown to the military and zia. It was also at this time the ISI were corrupted by exposure to the drug and gun running and was also part of the reason Pakistan showed some growth but that growth was built on sand ie the growth was not from education or manufacturing or service provision but due to sales of goods ie consumerism and look where we are now. We have the bearded assholes without an education or knowledge and is trying to take over the running of this country in world that is growing more sophisticated and advanced, While Pakistan is slowly but surely returning to the dark ages.

[HKK]

saber56, on 19 March 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

Of course, under Zia's rule things were far better than they are now. But they were in the condition of silent deterioation and one only has to look at the economic charts to find out. I praise the guy for launching projects to make Pak self-reliant militarily. Perhaps he foresaw America's intentions before hand. I also praise Bhutto for helping Pakistan get the atomic bomb, but besides this, seeing the mess he helped make in East Pakistan, I am not completely his fan either.

The point to all this is the fact being a bunch of proxy n!ggers has and will cause immense problems for this country economically, and maybe cost of the losing the country as a whole by foreign elements which will silently take over the country without much "fireworks". The demolition of the OBL compound by the PAK GOVERNMENT shows how much control and influence has silently creeped into Pakistani government which I can say is ~70% (may soon expand) ruled by foreign governments.

The man died in 88, thats more then two decades ago. There were no Taliban's then, infact it was the work of "democaratic" government of Benazir and her interior minister Naseer Ullah Baber, on behest of america. Zia has nothing to do with the mess we are in today. All Zia wanted to extend Pakistani control beyond river Amu deep into central Asia on west, and dismental india into smaller entities. If that was not patriotic and for the glory of Pakistan and i would like to know what else would be. He was through and through a patriot. But he was not liberal like most of the Pakistani elite. He basically made two mistakes. First, not to purge Paksitan of these liberals scumbags and secondly, he didnt have anybody, a system to carry on his good work after he was gone. With him all good that was in Pakistan disappeared and we went back in the lap of liberal elite again.

[Skull-Buster]

saber56, on 19 March 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

Of course, under Zia's rule things were far better than they are now. But they were in the condition of silent deterioation and one only has to look at the economic charts to find out

What economic charts are you talking about? Please enlighten us. I have showed you the "economic charts" in my previous post which you completely ignored and instead chose to keep on with your rant.

[atomicwaste12]

HKK, on 20 March 2012 - 10:17 AM, said:

The man died in 88, thats more then two decades ago. There were no Taliban's then, infact it was the work of "democaratic" government of Benazir and her interior minister Naseer Ullah Baber, on behest of america. Zia has nothing to do with the mess we are in today. All Zia wanted to extend Pakistani control beyond river Amu deep into central Asia on west, and dismental india into smaller entities. If that was not patriotic and for the glory of Pakistan and i would like to know what else would be. He was through and through a patriot. But he was not liberal like most of the Pakistani elite. He basically made two mistakes. First, not to purge Paksitan of these liberals scumbags and secondly, he didnt have anybody, a system to carry on his good work after he was gone. With him all good that was in Pakistan disappeared and we went back in the lap of liberal elite again.

I take offence to your use of liberal. Or rather your hypocrisy in maligning liberalism while enjoying the fruits of all those liberals who fought for your right to offend them. In fact I will say that our blessed Prophet was a liberal in his time and brought about the things we take for granted like our current right to speak and write our opinions in blogs like this one.

Zia was the opposite to our Prophet and did awful damage to the image of our great and liberal religion. Yes!! Islam is liberal, 2000 years ago when men lived according to the laws of the jungle and to the victor went the spoils and tributes of the fallen it was Islam and only Islam that made men equal, gave the freedom of worship, fought for the rights of the poor and downtrodden, saved women from the toment of a live burial and could go the Kaaba unveiled and stand as equals in fron of their Lord.

So please don't equate Zia, that evil dictator with Islam because he was about as Islamic as you are just. He was an oppressor and his unjust and unislamic laws are still opressing us. The hudood laws are a puss in the eye of a religion that has justice at the heart of its soul.

Zia was an ignorant and bigot, nothing more and good riddance.

[EagleHannan]

This is amaizing how nagating fact for behes braiy behes is favourite past time. Please Saber khuda ka wasta hay yar, we will not kill you for what you wrote but we hope you stop ranting for something thats stupid to the core @ the first place and lacks any substance. Take skull's brotherly advice. Its ok to be wrong. Its stupid to insist on it.

So like any investigation in Pakistan, when the whole story is dead, people in the case are dead, there is a verdict. That is, since people are dead investigations can not carry on. Lets laugh about it as this report is equal to the saying "larai k baad jo thapper yaad aaiy wo apnay moun pay mar lena chahayay". AmriKunts have already established their lie as a fact in the whole world. Now no one will take it even for a grain of salt. The world has no time to correct their records, the incident has gone in history books as Pakistan harbouring and exporting terror and blah blah.

Has this been voice loudly properly and in time to the world, this would have been a disputed case not as established as a fact as it is right now. The outcome is, Pakistanis getting zalil @ all places in the world, people inside worrying more about cloths cars and Indian flms while people like us, watch in desmay of our real face. Gherat, izat and himmit, we dont have it. So whatever world says is right. Baighairat nations suffer the fate we are suffering.

Someone should make a BATTI of this report and shove it up Pakistan Air Force, Army and ISI's a$$ along with anglosexan lawers and judges. Because the world will use this report as toilet papers now.

Pakistan Zindabad.

[faizan khaliq]

we don,t need a commission to find out so obvious facts
1.It was with consent of Tacit or open of PAF and Army , then it is  treason
2.It was without knowledge of PAF and Army command it  is incompetency

[HKK]

atomicwaste12, on 30 March 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

I take offence to your use of liberal. Or rather your hypocrisy in maligning liberalism while enjoying the fruits of all those liberals who fought for your right to offend them. In fact I will say that our blessed Prophet was a liberal in his time and brought about the things we take for granted like our current right to speak and write our opinions in blogs like this one.

Zia was the opposite to our Prophet and did awful damage to the image of our great and liberal religion. Yes!! Islam is liberal, 2000 years ago when men lived according to the laws of the jungle and to the victor went the spoils and tributes of the fallen it was Islam and only Islam that made men equal, gave the freedom of worship, fought for the rights of the poor and downtrodden, saved women from the toment of a live burial and could go the Kaaba unveiled and stand as equals in fron of their Lord.

So please don't equate Zia, that evil dictator with Islam because he was about as Islamic as you are just. He was an oppressor and his unjust and unislamic laws are still opressing us. The hudood laws are a puss in the eye of a religion that has justice at the heart of its soul.

Zia was an ignorant and bigot, nothing more and good riddance.

This is from the mouth of our enemies.


http://dawn.com/2012...assified-memos/



US found Zia ‘most patriotic liar’ on nukes, reveal declassified memos


WASHINGTON: US officials concluded in the 1980s that Pakistan was lying about its nuclear program but muted criticism due to Islamabad’s support against the Soviets in Afghanistan, declassified documents showed.
The memos released Thursday reveal some of the behind-the-scenes drama between the United States and Pakistan during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, foreshadowing current-day debates in the uneasy war partnership.
The documents included an account of a secret mission in June 1982 by a US envoy who confronted Pakistani military ruler Mohammed Zia ul-Haq with a letter from Reagan and said the United States had “incontrovertible” proof that Pakistan was seeking nuclear weapons.
The emissary, veteran US diplomat and translator Vernon Walters, said that Zia was “extraordinarily courteous, relaxed” and explained that he had no knowledge of nuclear weapons development but would check with his subordinates.
“Either he really does not know or is the most superb and patriotic liar I have ever met,” Walters wrote to the State Department.
The documents, some obtained after requests under the US Freedom of Information Act, were released to the National Security Archive at George Washington University, which made them available to AFP in advance.
Pakistan tested an atomic bomb in 1998, days after tests by neighbouring India. The United States banned assistance to Pakistan in 1990 – soon after the Soviets left Afghanistan – after concluding that it was developing nuclear weapons.
But Reagan exempted Pakistan from a law requiring sanctions, named after then senator Larry Pressler, even though the memos said that officials knew that the country was moving toward nuclear weapons.
The documents showed that the Reagan administration was genuinely concerned about Pakistan’s nuclear program, fearing it would trigger instability, and repeatedly warned Zia that Congress could cut off assistance.
“There is overwhelming evidence that Zia has been breaking his assurances to us. We are absolutely confident that our intelligence is genuine and accurate,” then secretary of state George Shultz wrote in a November 1982 memo to Reagan.
But Shultz recalled the “essential role” played by Zia in Afghanistan, where US and Pakistani agents funneled weapons to Islamic guerrillas who successfully fought a Soviet invasion.
“A rupture of our relationship would call into question a central tenet of this administration’s foreign policy – strong support for our friends,” Shultz wrote, calling the Afghan effort “the most visible evidence of the US commitment to counter Soviet military thrusts worldwide.” The memos said that as far back as 1982, US intelligence detected that Pakistani agents were seeking suspicious items from countries including Belgium, Finland, Japan, Sweden and Turkey.
Years later, such efforts were discovered to be the work of scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb. He is also accused of running a vast international black market of nuclear goods.
One secret assessment said that Pakistan was already believed to have enough for one nuclear weapon by October 1985 with assistance from China.
The US memos acknowledged that Pakistan was unlikely to comply with US pleas on its nuclear program in light of its concern over India, which has fought three full-fledged wars with Pakistan since independence in 1947.
The documents said that the United States was also urging “restraint” from India, which had strained relations with Washington during the 1980s.
Despite the criticism of its nuclear program, the United States resumed assistance to Pakistan to the tune of nearly $20 billion after it again offered support in Afghanistan following the September 11, 2001 attacks