US to Pakistan: "We will bomb you back to the stone age"

darkcrowdarkcrow Posts: 1,102
edited September 2006 in A Moving Train
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060921/pl_afp/usattackspakistan_060921194310


NEW YORK (AFP) - The United States threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the stone age" in 2001 unless it cooperated in the US-led war on terror, President Pervez Musharraf said in an interview.

Musharraf, whose support for the US-led invasion of Afghanistan was instrumental in the fall of the hardline Taliban regime after the September 11, 2001 attacks, said the threat came from former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage.

The Pakistani leader said the comments were delivered to his intelligence director, according to selected transcripts of the interview with CBS television's "60 Minutes" investigative news programme due to be broadcast Sunday.

"The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the stone age'," Musharraf said.

"I think it was a very rude remark," Musharraf says in the interview. "One has to think and take actions in the interests of the nation, and that's what I did."

Shortly after the September 11 attacks, Pakistan abandoned its support for the Taliban, which was sheltering Al-Qaeda leaders, and became a front-line ally in the US-led "war on terror."

Pakistan has arrested several senior Al-Qaeda members including Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the alleged mastermind of the 2001 attacks.

The South Asian country has also deployed around 80,000 troops on the rugged border with Afghanistan to hunt pro-Taliban and Al-Qaeda linked militants who sneaked into the area after fleeing the US-led invasion of Afghanistan.

Armitage's alleged threat also demanded that Pakistan turn over border posts and bases for the US military to use in the war in Afghanistan, which ended with the Taliban regime's collapse in late 2001.

Other "ludicrous" demands required Pakistan to suppress domestic expressions of support for militant attacks on US targets, according to the CBS, which produces 60 Minutes.

"If somebody's expressing views, we cannot curb the expression of views," it quoted Musharraf as saying.

In the interview, Musharraf also reveals an embarrassing episode in which former CIA director George Tenet confronted him in 2003 with proof that Pakistan's top nuclear scientist was passing secrets to Libya, Iran and North Korea.

Abdul Qadeer Khan, held as hero in Pakistan for helping to make the country a nuclear power, admitted giving away nuclear secrets in a televised confession in February 2004, exposing a global black market in nuclear technology.

"He (Tenet) took his briefcase out, passed me some papers. It was a centrifuge design with all its numbers and signatures of Pakistan. It was the most embarrassing moment," Musharraf says.

It was only then, he says, that he realised that not only had blueprints been leaked, but that centrifuges themselves -- a crucial technology needed to enrich uranium to weapons grade -- were being passed on, CBS said.

Musharraf denies that anyone in the government or military was aware of the leak.

He pardoned Khan the same month, but the ailing scientist has since lived under virtual house arrest in a leafy diplomatic sector in Islamabad and makes no public appearances.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    it wouldnt be such a big deal, they are still in the stone age
  • jsandjsand Posts: 646
    jlew24asu wrote:
    it wouldnt be such a big deal, they are still in the stone age

    LOL! Well said.
  • darkcrowdarkcrow Posts: 1,102
    jlew24asu wrote:
    it wouldnt be such a big deal, they are still in the stone age

    i guess you dont care much for human life?
  • jsandjsand Posts: 646
    "The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the stone age'," Musharraf said.

    So, this entire non-story is based on hearsay. Wonderful.
  • darkcrowdarkcrow Posts: 1,102
    jsand wrote:
    "The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the stone age'," Musharraf said.

    So, this entire non-story is based on hearsay. Wonderful.

    this isnt just some guy... it was the intelligence director... i think that holds a bit of weight. would you say it was hearsay if the head of the cia told bush china threatened to bomb the usa unless they supported their war on a countrY??
  • jsandjsand Posts: 646
    darkcrow wrote:
    this isnt just some guy... it was the intelligence director... i think that holds a bit of weight. would you say it was hearsay if the head of the cia told bush china threatened to bomb the usa unless they supported their war on a countrY??

    Oh. "The" intelligence director. Now I feel better.
  • The intelligence director's alleged response to Armitage:

    "Oh, yeah ... Well ... YOUR MOM! ..."


    On a more serious note, this story is entirely plausible. I mean, the government of this country is secular, but the populace most assuredly is not. Pakistan's government would probably require more than a little arm twisting. Not to mention Pakistan's own status as a storehouse of fundamentalist types, some of whom are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers themselves. The U.S. choose to apply diplomatic pressure, rather than invade Pakistan as well ... I don't doubt that the governments' hands were tied in this case.
  • jsand wrote:
    So, this entire non-story is based on hearsay. Wonderful.

    Like the entire basis for the Iraq war? Someone said they had mobile weapon labs, someone said Saddam met with Al Quada, someone said they were developing nuclear weapons....
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • jsandjsand Posts: 646
    Like the entire basis for the Iraq war? Someone said they had mobile weapon labs, someone said Saddam met with Al Quada, someone said they were developing nuclear weapons....

    Whatever floats your boat. It would be nice if those of the leftist persuasion would apply the skepticism they use on anything coming from the US government on governments such as Pakistan's.
  • jsand wrote:
    Whatever floats your boat. It would be nice if those of the leftist persuasion would apply the skepticism they use on anything coming from the US government on governments such as Pakistan's.


    Point ...
  • jsand wrote:
    Whatever floats your boat. It would be nice if those of the leftist persuasion would apply the skepticism they use on anything coming from the US government on governments such as Pakistan's.

    I try not to accept anything that comes from any governement without skepticism.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    darkcrow wrote:
    i guess you dont care much for human life?



    for scumbag terrorists that kill non believers and rape women at will? no i dont care.


    they arent exactly innocent people
  • darkcrowdarkcrow Posts: 1,102
    jlew24asu wrote:
    for scumbag terrorists that kill non believers and rape women at will? no i dont care.


    they arent exactly innocent people

    the population of pakistan? the entire population of pakistan? maybe you want to rethink that... there is a difference between bombing a country back to the stone age and precision strikes againt terrorist training camps
  • Gary CarterGary Carter Posts: 14,067
    darkcrow wrote:
    there is a difference between bombing a country back to the stone age and precision strikes againt terrorist training camps
    thats hard for people too understand when there brianwashed
    Ron: I just don't feel like going out tonight
    Sammi: Wanna just break up?

  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    darkcrow wrote:
    the population of pakistan? the entire population of pakistan? maybe you want to rethink that... there is a difference between bombing a country back to the stone age and precision strikes againt terrorist training camps

    I have faith that it would have been precision strikes. bombing back to the stone age was just an exaggeration. US does not target civillians
  • darkcrowdarkcrow Posts: 1,102
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I have faith that it would have been precision strikes. bombing back to the stone age was just an exaggeration. US does not target civillians

    alot of parents in afghanistan and iraq who have lost their kids to american bombs would argue against that.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    darkcrow wrote:
    alot of parents in afghanistan and iraq who have lost their kids to american bombs would argue against that.

    americans do not target civillians. they have dropped leaflets to warm the population. terrorsits tend to hide among civillans as well. while loss of innocent life is horrible, mistakes happen. my point is americans do not target a civillian complex and bomb it. we are only after the terrorists who killed us on 9/11
  • darkcrowdarkcrow Posts: 1,102
    jlew24asu wrote:
    americans do not target civillians. they have dropped leaflets to warm the population. terrorsits tend to hide among civillans as well. while loss of innocent life is horrible, mistakes happen. my point is americans do not target a civillian complex and bomb it. we are only after the terrorists who killed us on 9/11

    so where is osama? seriously... if someone robbed my house i dont think the police would be beating up the thief's family, they would be going after the thief.... but its all moot i guess. apparently bush doesnt think much on osama anymore
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    We never learn...
    "The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend". I hear that a lot over here.
    If true...
    Then... Saddam Hussein was the enemy of my enemy, the Ayatollah Khomeni of Iran, therefore, Saddam Hussein was my friend.
    Question: Who is worse today... Saddam Hussein (Iraq) or the fundamentalist government of Iran (who is still my enemy)?
    Or...
    Then... Usama bin Laden was the enemy of my enemy, The Soviet Union... therefore, Usama bin Laden was my friend.
    Question: Who is worse... Al Qaeda or the former Soviet Union?
    ...
    Now... Pakistan is the enemy of my enemy, al Qaeda (which is in question because of the loyalty of the Muslim nation of Pakistan... I do not hold a lot of faith in a nation whose citizens are naming their new borns, 'Usama')... therefore, Pakistan is my friend???
    We are arming and funding Pakistan today, kiddies... am i the only one who thinks this is not a really good idea?
    ...
    Finally... the next time you utter that phrase, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", remember how well it has worked out for us in the past. Maybe it's time to end this idiotic logic.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    darkcrow wrote:
    so where is osama? seriously... if someone robbed my house i dont think the police would be beating up the thief's family, they would be going after the thief.... but its all moot i guess. apparently bush doesnt think much on osama anymore


    im very pissed off at bush for not staying after that fuck. i wont argue with you about that.
  • darkcrowdarkcrow Posts: 1,102
    Cosmo wrote:
    We never learn...

    ...
    Finally... the next time you utter that phrase, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", remember how well it has worked out for us in the past. Maybe it's time to end this idiotic logic.

    there was this great documentry shown recently on british tv about extreamism... not just muslim extreamism but extreamism arund the world from christianity to hinduism to bhuddism and jewdaism.

    basically it came to a sub conclusion that we reap what we sow... the mughals (muslims) horribly surpressed the hindus in the 1500's-1700's. now hindus are horribly supressing muslims and a reason cited is the treatment of hindus by mughals..

    as such western policy in the middle east has festered the climate we have today. now it certainly didnt start with the americans. the british and other european imperial powers started it all but its been taken on by the us.
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    jlew24asu wrote:
    im very pissed off at bush for not staying after that fuck. i wont argue with you about that.


    I think the United States is involved in too many world issues as it is...it should step back and let people decide their own fate. They have a pretty shitty track record when it comes to that sort of thing.
  • darkcrowdarkcrow Posts: 1,102
    Commy wrote:
    I think the United States is involved in too many world issues as it is...it should step back and let people decide their own fate. They have a pretty shitty track record when it comes to that sort of thing.

    another period of grand isolationism?? might not be so bad
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    darkcrow wrote:
    another period of grand isolationism?? might not be so bad
    It doesn't even have to be that...I mean...we can be involved, we just don't have to be in charge you know. No one country should be, that's why the UN should be gven the repect it deserves...the US is the primary obstacle to the UN functioning as a significant world player.

    We have plenty of resources that could be helping any number of third world countries, to help them help themsleves. This marine diplomacy isn't really making the world all that safe.
  • darkcrowdarkcrow Posts: 1,102
    Commy wrote:
    It doesn't even have to be that...I mean...we can be involved, we just don't have to be in charge you know. No one country should be, that's why the UN should be gven the repect it deserves...the US is the primary obstacle to the UN functioning as a significant world player.

    We have plenty of resources that could be helping any number of third world countries, to help them help themsleves. This marine diplomacy isn't really making the world all that safe.

    if you guys spent all the money you have put into wars in iraq/afghanistan, clean water could be brought to the majority of the 3rd world. could you imagin that? kids that grew up drinking clean water?! that would give the americans a billion times more good PR and generations of supporters in these countries
  • there are a few countries i wish the U.S.A. would "BOMB BACK TO THE STONE AGE"...................
    Take me piece by piece.....
    Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
  • brain of cbrain of c Posts: 5,213
    i will stone you back to the bomb age!
  • brain of cbrain of c Posts: 5,213
    darkcrow wrote:
    if you guys spent all the money you have put into wars in iraq/afghanistan, clean water could be brought to the majority of the 3rd world. could you imagin that? kids that grew up drinking clean water?! that would give the americans a billion times more good PR and generations of supporters in these countries


    if the third world would install electricity they could drink pepsi from their fridge.
  • OpenOpen Posts: 792
    jsand wrote:
    "The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the stone age'," Musharraf said.

    So, this entire non-story is based on hearsay. Wonderful.

    You dont how much this one post says about people with your mindset. Amazing, but not suprising.
  • KannKann Posts: 1,146
    I don't really see what's surprising. Pressuring countries in a physical or economic way has always been a reality for any powerful country (and I don't mean just the usa, but most occidental countries).
    When pakistan joined usa in the war against terror the majority of the pakistani population was against this, so I guess pakistan didn't join usa just for the fun of it.
    These threats happen, all the time. It's called diplomacy.
Sign In or Register to comment.