Pentagon Attack on 911

[Armenian]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

A senior US defence official says the United States is readying a major arms package for Saudi Arabia with an eye to countering a changing threat from Iran.

This may actually be a good sign. Perhaps policy makers in Washington DC are realizing that Iran will not be defeated militarily by US forces in the region due to Iran's political resilience and its military/economic alliance with Russia and China. So, they are putting their hopes upon Saudi Arabia, Israel, puppet states in the Persian Gulf, as well as Turkey and Pakistan to be the counterbalances to Iran and Russia in the region for the foreseeable future.

[Armenian]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

Musharraf finally admits what has been common knowledge since the mid 90s, namely that Pakistanis have supported the Taliban in Afghanistan. What he did not admit, however, is also a well known fact that the Pakistani intelligence apparatus the ISI, along with the CIA, set up and financed the Taliban movement in Afghanistan during the mid 90s.

Was it done to fight the Soviets? Obviously no, for the Soviets were comprehensively defeated and withdrew several years prior, and by the mid 90s the Soviet Union did not even exists anymore. Nevertheless, upon expelling the Soviets in the late 80s Afghanistan had a chance to build a nation once again. This chance was destroyed when Pakistan, along with several intelligence agencies, decided to set-up Al-Qaeda type institutions within Afghanistan's political vacuum. The Pashtuns of Afghanistan that had cultural/tribal ties with Pakistan were used towards that purpose. Today, the average Afghan, especially the Tadjiks of Afghanistan's north, hate and fear Pakistan with a passion.

The late legendary Tadjik leader Ahmad Masood, the lion of Panshir, knew the depth and severity of Pakistan's involvement in the Taliban movement and in the so-called AL-Qaeda organization. The Masood lead Tadjiks of the north were the only opposition the Taliban/Al-Qaeda had in Afghanistan. What's more, during the early part of the year 2001 Masood traveled to Western Europe and the United States to express his deep concerns about the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and Pakistan's involvement within the two. However, he was ignored by the main-stream media and politicians alike.

It is interesting to note here that Masood was assassinated two days prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Afghan Tadjiks to this day claim that the assassination of the great leader was an operation conducted by Pakistani intelligence.

Armenian

************************************************** ******

Taliban backed in Pakistan



General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, made a rare admission that Taliban fighters in Afghanistan were benefiting from support inside his country as Afghanistan and Pakistan on Sunday vowed to work harder to tackle extremism. The pledges came at the end of a four-day, US-backed meeting of Pashtun leaders from both countries. Dubbed the “Peace Jirga” after the name given to traditional meetings by the Pashtun tribes who live on both sides of the border, the meeting was conceived and pushed for by Washington as a way to secure better co-operation between Kabul and Islamabad. Gen Musharraf struck a blow to the meeting last week when at the last minute he abandoned plans to attend opening ceremonies. He and Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, have also had testy exchanges in the past about what some see as Taliban safe havens in Pakistan’s frontier provinces.

But Gen Musharraf – under increasing political pressure from Islamists at home – said yesterday the countries needed to do more to fight terrorism.

“There is no other option for both countries other than peace and unity, trust and co-operation,” he told the closing session of the jirga. Pakistan has in the past denied Taliban fighters were finding safe haven in its tribal areas. But Gen Musharraf said yesterday: “There is no doubt Afghan militants are supported from Pakistan soil. The problem that you have in your region is because support is provided from our side.”

The two governments have made similar pledges to work together in the past. However, supporters of the jirga said the difference this time lay in the involvement of elected and civil society representatives including tribal leaders and community elders. The governments’ promise to refuse to allow sanctuaries to terrorists was also endorsed by jirga representatives who recommended tribal communities in the affected areas become responsible for ensuring this. A joint declaration adopted by the jirga earlier recognised terrorism as a common threat, emphasised the need for a war on terror and pledged: “[The] government and people of Afghanistan and Pakistan will not allow sanctuaries/training centres for terrorists in their respective countries.”

The declaration emphasised mutual respect, non-interference and peaceful co-existence and called for a war against drug trafficking as well as for economic development of the affected areas.

Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2b8a8cd6-48e...0779fd2ac.html

[Armenian]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

How Neo-Cons Sabotaged Iran's Help on al Qaeda



After the Sep. 11 attacks, U.S. officials responsible for preparing for war in Afghanistan needed Iran's help to unseat the Taliban and establish a stable government in Kabul. Iran had organised resistance by the "Northern Alliance" and had provided arms and funding, at a time when the United States had been unwilling to do so. "The Iranians had real contacts with important players in Afghanistan and were prepared to use their influence in constructive ways in coordination with the United States," recalls Flynt Leverett, then senior director for Middle East affairs in the National Security Council (NSC), in an interview with IPS.

In October 2001, as the United States was just beginning its military operations in Afghanistan, State Department and NSC officials began meeting secretly with Iranian diplomats in Paris and Geneva, under the sponsorship of Lakhdar Brahimi, head of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan. Leverett says these discussions focused on "how to effectively unseat the Taliban and once the Taliban was gone, how to stand up an Afghan government". It was thanks to the Northern Alliance Afghan troops, which were supported primarily by the Iranians, that the Taliban was driven out of Kabul in mid-November. Two weeks later, the Afghan opposition groups were convened in Bonn under United Nations auspices to agree on a successor regime.

At that meeting, the Northern Alliance was demanding 60 percent of the portfolios in an interim government, which was blocking agreement by other opposition groups. According to U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan James Dobbins, Iran played a "decisive role" in persuading the Northern Alliance delegate to compromise. Dobbins also recalls how the Iranians insisted on including language in the Bonn agreement on the war on terrorism. The bureaucracy recognised that there was an opportunity to work with Iran not only on stabilising Afghanistan but on al Qaeda as well. As reported by the Washington Post on Oct. 22, 2004, the State Department's policy planning staff had written a paper in late November 2001 suggesting that the United States should propose more formal arrangements for cooperation with Iran on fighting al Qaeda.

That would have involved exchanging intelligence information with Tehran as well as coordinating border sweeps to capture al Qaeda fighters and leaders who were already beginning to move across the border into Pakistan and Iran. The CIA agreed with the proposal, according to the Post's sources, as did the head of the White House Office for Combating Terrorism, Ret. Gen. Wayne A. Downing. But the cooperation against al Qaeda was not the priority for the anti-Iranian interests in the White House and the Pentagon. Investigative journalist Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack" recounts that Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen J. Hadley, who chaired an inter-agency committee on Iran policy dealing with issues surrounding Afghanistan, learned that the White House intended to include Iran as a member of the "Axis of Evil" in Bush's State of the Union message in January.

Hadley expressed reservations about that plan at one point, but was told by Bush directly that Iran had to stay in. By the end of December, Hadley had decided, against the recommendations of the State Department, CIA and White House counter-terrorism office, that the United States would not share any information with Iran on al Qaeda, even though it would press the Iranians for such intelligence, as well as to turn over any al Qaeda members it captured to the appropriate home country. Soon after that decision, hardliners presented Iranian policy to Bush and the public as hostile to U.S. aims in Afghanistan and refusing to cooperate with the war on terror -- the opposite of what officials directly involved had witnessed.

On Jan. 11, 2002, the New York Times quoted Pentagon and intelligence officials as saying that Iran had given "safe haven" to fleeing al Qaeda fighters in order to use them against the United States in post-Taliban Afghanistan. That same day, Bush declared "Iran must be a contributor in the war against terror." "Our nation, in our fight against terrorism, will uphold the doctrine of 'either you're with us or against us'," he said. Officials who were familiar with the intelligence at that point agree that the "safe haven for al Qaeda" charge was not based on any genuine analysis by the intelligence community.

"I wasn't aware of any intelligence support that charge," recalls Dobbins, who was still the primary point of contact with Iranian officials about cooperation on Afghanistan. "I certainly would have seen it had there been any such intelligence. Nobody told me they were harbouring al Qaeda."

Iran had already increased its troop strength on the Afghan border in response to U.S. requests. As the Washington Post reported in 2004, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Javad Zarif brought a dossier to U.N Secretary-General Kofi Annan in early February with the photos of 290 men believed to be al Qaeda members who already been detained fleeing from Afghanistan. Later hundreds of al Qaeda and Taliban detainees were repatriated to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and other Arab and European countries, according to news reports. The hardliners would complain that the Iranians did not turn over any top al Qaeda leaders. But the United States had just rejected any exchange of information with the very officials with whom it needed to discuss the question of al Qaeda -- the Iranian intelligence and security ministry.

The same administration officials told the Times that Iran was seeking to exert its influence in border regions in western Afghanistan by shipping arms to its Afghan allies in the war against the Taliban and that this could undermine the interim government and Washington's long-term interests in Afghanistan. But in March 2002, Iranian official met with Dobbins in Geneva during a U.N. conference on Afghanistan's security needs. Dobbins recalls that the Iranian delegation brought with it the general who had been responsible for military assistance to the Northern Alliance during the long fight against the Taliban.

The general offered to provide training, uniforms, equipment and barracks for as many as 20,000 new recruits for the nascent Afghan military. All this was to be done under U.S. leadership, Dobbins recalls, not as part of a separate programme under exclusive Iranian control. "The Iranians later confirmed that they did this as a gesture to the United States," says Dobbins. Dobbins returned to Washington to inform key administration officials of what he regarded as an opportunity for a new level of cooperation in Afghanistan. He briefed then Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Rumsfeld personally. "To my knowledge, there was never a response," he says.

*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in June 2005.

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0222-07.htm

[Armenian]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

Call me naive but wouldn't these guys have more luck chasing down "Al-Qaeda" in Pakistan? I never got that. Perhaps I don't understand, perhaps they know something we don't...

Armenian

************************************************** **********

16,000 troops on hunt for al Qaeda in Iraq



The U.S. military has announced a massive offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq militants in Diyala province -- now one of the major fronts in the war. Operation Lightning Hammer began Monday. It includes about 10,000 coalition troops and 6,000 Iraqi security forces who are targeting "al Qaeda elements" who have fled the provincial capital of Baquba, according to a military statement on Tuesday.

Diyala is one of the so-called Baghdad belts, areas near the capital that have a strong insurgent presence. The military hopes to stave off attacks in the capital by defeating insurgents in those areas, which also include Anbar province to the west and the region south and southeast of Baghdad. In Baghdad, meanwhile, coalition forces targeted fighters that have been linked to the Mehdi Army, the militia of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Coalition troops on Tuesday killed four insurgents and detained eight others in a raid in the Shiite neighborhood of Sadr City. Troops were targeting what it describes as "rogue" Mehdi Army militants that have "ties to illicit materials smuggled from Iran that have been used in extra-judicial killings."

The U.S. military also announced more operations against militias Monday in Baghdad. Iraqi Special Operations troops that are advised by U.S. Special Forces have carried out "synchronized intelligence driven operations" that led to the detention of 12 "rogue" Mehdi Army insurgents. The detained, who include several commander-level insurgents, are suspected of carrying out sectarian killings and roadside bombings. One, a brigade commander, is suspected of transporting roadside bomb materiel from Iran into Iraq and is said to have ordered a bombing that killed two U.S. soldiers. He is also suspected of ordering militants "to set up illegal checkpoints to hunt down and assassinate Sunni citizens." Another militant is accused of setting up a bomb in a market in June that killed two coalition soldiers.

Also Tuesday, at least eight people were killed and 10 others wounded when a suicide bomber driving a fuel tanker detonated on a bridge in the Taji area, north of Baghdad, an official with Iraq's Interior Ministry said. The attack partially collapsed the bridge that links Baghdad to northern Iraq. At least five vehicles plunged off the structure. The U.S. military said Tuesday that three U.S. soldiers died from injuries they incurred Monday when an explosion went off near their vehicle in Nineveh province in northern Iraq. A U.S. soldier was killed and three others were wounded on Tuesday in western Baghdad, the U.S. military said. The deaths bring to 3,694 the number of American military personnel, including seven defense contractors, who have died in the Iraq war. Thirty-six U.S. troops have been killed in August.

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/me...ain/index.html

[Armenian]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

I don't know who this dude is but the interview is interesting:

"Hollywood director and documentary film maker Aaron Russo has gone in-depth on the astounding admissions of Nick Rockefeller" -

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1263677258215075609&q=Aaron+Russo+Nick+Rockefeller&hl=en

[Armenian]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

Pakistan Releases Al-Qaida Operative



Pakistan has released an alleged al-Qaida operative without charge three years after his arrest. The suspect played a key role in an undercover sting operation that targeted known al-Qaida terrorists. From Islamabad, VOA correspondent Benjamin Sand reports. Pakistani authorities say Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan was freed several days ago and is with his family in the southern city of Karachi. Khan's lawyer, Babar Awan says the government gave no indication it had been considering the release.

"I was taken by surprise when I started arguing before the Supreme Court and suddenly the Attorney General came up and said Mr. Khan has been released," said Awan. Khan was arrested in 2004 in the eastern city of Lahore. Intelligence officers described Khan as a senior Al-Qaida computer expert. He was seen as a liaison between the terrorist group's leaders and its militant forces around the world. His computer contained alleged plans for possible terrorist attacks in London and several cities in the United States.

E-mails linked Khan to suspects in the 1998 U.S. embassy attacks in East Africa and led to a number of arrests in Africa, the Middle East and Great Britain. Khan himself was reportedly never charged and officials familiar with his case say he cooperated with investigators who were leading a major sting operation targeting Al-Qaida militants. His undercover work came to an abrupt end however after his name and detention were reported in the media only a few weeks after his arrest. More recently Khan's name was tied to a separate and still unresolved controversy here in Pakistan.

Families and human rights workers have been pressing the government through the courts for information about several hundred suspected militants. They say the militants, including Khan, have been secretly and illegally detained as part of the government's war against terrorism. The plight of the secretly detained has fueled opposition to the government's efforts to crack down on religious extremists. At the same time U.S. officials say Pakistan has to do more to combat al-Qaida linked militants operating inside its borders. Pakistan remains a key U.S. ally in the region although security experts say Al-Qaida is gaining ground in the country's remote tribal areas along the Afghan border.

Source: http://voanews.com/english/2007-08-21-voa13.cfm

[Armenian]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

And in related news:

London Bomber was MI5



How the Government Staged the London Bombings in Ten Easy Steps

1) Hire a Crisis Management firm to set up an exercise that parallels the terrorist attack you are going to carry out. Have them run the exercise at the precise locations and at the very same time as the attack. If at any stage of the attack your Arabs get caught, tell the police it was part of an exercise.

2) Hire four Arabs and tell them they're taking part in an important exercise to help defend London from terrorist attacks. Strap them with rucksacks filled with deadly explosives. Tell the Arabs the rucksacks are dummy explosives and wouldn't harm a fly.

3) Tell four Arabs to meet up at London Underground and disperse, each getting on a different train. Make sure Arabs meet in a location where you can get a good mug shot of them all on CCTV which you can later endlessly repeat to drooling masses on television.

4) While four Arabs are in London, plant explosives in their houses in Leeds. Plant some explosives in one of their cars in Luton for the police to later discover. Remember that Qu'ran and flight manual in the hijackers' car? Ha ha, they fell for that one hook, line and sinker. No need to change tactics on this one.

5) Before the bombings take place, make sure you warn any of your buddies who are scheduled to be anywhere near where the bombs go off. If this gets leaked to the press, just deny it.

6) 4th Arab goes out partying in London night before and ends up getting out of bed late. No worries, the 9/11 'hijackers' did the same thing but that didn't cause us a big problem. 4th Arab catches bus to see if other Arabs are waiting for him. 4th Arab starts hearing about explosions in the London Underground. 4th Arab comes to the realization that this he is being set up and freaks out. 4th Arab starts fiddling in his rucksack. 4th Arab sets bomb off and is blown up.

If you hired any additional Arabs and they also got wind of the set up, make sure tere are GPS locators in the rucksacks so you can have police snipers ready to kill them before they can blow the whistle.

7) After the bombs go off, put out a story for over an hour that the explosions are a simple electrical fault. This gives you cover time to make sure the lazy bus Arab is dead and any other hired Arabs who reneged are also dead. Make sure any CCTV footage that doesn't support your official story is either seized or destroyed.

8) A few hours after the bombings, have one of your boys post an 'Al-Qaeda statement' claiming responsibility. Don't worry about the whole 'misreferencing the Qu'ran' thing, these idiots don't have the attention spans to figure it out.

9) After you have made sure that all the Arabs are dead and you are managing the story accordingly, wait for four days until the police piece together the story and find the explosives you planted in Leeds and in the car in Luton. Remember that Qu'ran and flight manual in the hijackers' car? Ha ha, they fell for that one hook, line and sinker. No need to change tactics this time either. The time delay will convince the gullible public that a real investigation is taking place. Create a background of the hired Arabs being militant Muslims. The drooling masses, as was the case with the '9/11 hijackers,' will ignore stories of neighbours saying they were the quiet, educated types who liked children and playing sports.

BBC excerpt: One local resident described him as "a nice lad".

"He liked to play football, he liked to play cricket. I'm shocked."

Another resident said he was just a "normal kid" who played basketball and kicked a ball around.

10) Sit back and enjoy as Blair and his minions grandstand in front of television cameras about staying the course in the war on terror. The pay raise, extra agency funding, and power to strip more freedoms and liberties made the ten easy steps to staging a terrorist attack a worthwhile venture. The dozens of dead people were necessary collateral damage. This is a dirty war, we need to be less moral than the terrorists to defeat them.

And that's how the government staged the bombings in ten easy steps.

Granted, you can interchange different pieces of the puzzle. The bombers could be real terrorists that knew exactly what they were doing. All you would need to do is control the 'mastermind' behind the attack and make sure his boys carried out the job in the way you wanted. Voila.

Source: http://www.fathers.ca/london_bomber_was_mi5.htm

[Armenian]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

Again we see the ugly hand of Pakistan in anti-American terrorism and its undisputed connection to the so-called Al-Qaeda organization. So, how will US policy makers react now?

They will wage war against Iran..., and then maybe Syria.

Armenian

************************************************** *************

Alleged bomb plot in Germany motivated by "hatred of Americans"

September 5 (RIA Novosti) - Three men are in custody in Germany on suspicion of preparing terrorist acts on a range of targets, including Frankfurt airport and a U.S. Air Force base in Ramstein, German officials said Wednesday. The three suspects, two German converts to Islam and a Turk, are believed by criminal investigators to have undergone training with a Sunni Muslim terrorist group in Pakistan, subsequently forming a German cell. The group, named as Islamic Jihad Union by Federal Prosecutor Monika Harms, is an offshoot of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. Harms said that the "al-Qaeda inspired" group had enough hydrogen peroxide to produce a bomb with the explosive equivalent of 550 kilograms (1,200 pounds) of TNT.

"That would have enabled them to make bombs with more explosive power than the ones used in the London and Madrid bombings," Joerg Ziercke, the head of Germany's federal crime office, said. "The apparent motive was hatred of Americans."

The group had been under surveillance by police since December 2006, and the decision to arrest them was taken after they were observed moving the explosive materials from a rented garage in the Black Forest to a rented holiday flat in the Northern Rhine region. According to German officials, the trio had planned to carry out attacks on discotheques, parks, restaurants, and airports used by Americans. They said the bombings were due to start "within days."

"We were able to succeed in recognizing and preventing the most serious and massive bombings," Harms told reporters. German soldiers are based in Afghanistan, but they have not been sent to Iraq. Although the terrorist cell responsible for the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington was based in Hamburg, Germany has so far avoided the kind of large-scale attacks by Islamist terrorists seen elsewhere in Europe.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/world/20070905/76860347.html

[trion]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

http://members.lycos.co.uk/prscript

[Armenian]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

So, Washington DC's closest ally in the Middle East and the recipient of billions of USD in military aid warns of an Al-Qaeda attack on mainland USA and no one in Washington DC does anything? Several years later they do the same in London and no one in London does anything?

To reiterate a few points:

Ossama and company are said to be based in Pakistan.

Taliban is said to be based in Pakistan.

Islamic terrorists in Kashmir are said to be based in Pakistan.

Overwhelming majority of Islamic terrorists being apprehended in the West either are Pakistanis or have been training in Pakistan.

Saudi Arabia is said to be the number one benefactor of Islamic Madrasas worldwide.

Saudi Arabia is said to be the number one supporter Sunni Islamic extremism worldwide.

Most 9/11 terrorists were of Saudi Arabian decent.

However...

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are the United States' most vital allies in the "War on Terror."

And...

Forces of democracy are protecting our freedom in USA by the bloody/illegal occupation of Iraq and planning the destruction of Iran...

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan receive multi-billions of USD in military aid from Washington DC. And the official reason why they get so much is: Pakistan and Saudi Arabia need to fight "Islamic terrorists," according to law makers in Washington DC. Yes, they need to fight Islamic terrorists in "tribal" areas with state-of-the-art jet fighters, early warning radar systems, cutting edge missiles technology, sophisticated tanks, modern warships...

You get the picture.

Instead of the current BS in Iraq and Iran had the forces of the "coalition of the willing" saturated the "tribal" areas of Pakistan I would have fully supported this so-called "War-on-Terror."

But we all know that this war has nothing to do with fighting Islamic terrorism.

Note: Regarding Musharaf, a lot of curious things are occurring in Islamabad. Although I'm not paying much attention to what is occurring there I have a feeling that Washington DC is gradually implementing a plan to replace its favorite dictator in the region. Benazir Bhutto suddenly and forcefully coming out of the London fog is by no coincidence. A lot of things seem to be getting orchestrated in Pakistan lately. For the sake of public approval they have to make it look good.

Armenian

************************************************** ****************

Saudis claim US ignored 'precise' 9/11 warnings



SAUDI Arabia could have helped the US prevent Al-Qaeda's 2001 attacks on New York and Washington if US officials had consulted Saudi authorities in a "credible" way, a former diplomat said in a documentary aired yesterday. CNN reported Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former Saudi ambassador to the US, as saying that Saudi intelligence was "actively following" most of the 9/11 plotters "with precision". The comments are similar to the remarks this week by Saudi King Abdullah that suggested Britain could have prevented the July 2005 train bombings in London if it had heeded warnings from Riyadh, the network said. Speaking to the Arabic satellite network Al-Arabiya, Prince Bandar - King Abdullah's national security adviser - said if US security authorities had engaged their Saudi counterparts in a serious and credible manner, "in my opinion, we would have avoided what happened". Prince Bandar was the Saudi ambassador to Washington for nearly 22 years before he was replaced in 2005. A knowledgeable US official told CNN that Prince Bandar's comments should be taken "with a grain of salt". On Monday, King Abdullah told the BBC that Saudi Arabia had sent warnings to British authorities before the London subway bombings that killed 52 people - the city's bloodiest day since World War II.

[...]

Source: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...75-401,00.html

Saudi king criticizes U.K. on terror



King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia accused Britain on Monday of failing to act on information the Saudis provided that might have averted London's deadly July 7, 2005, suicide bombings, the British Broadcasting Corp. reported. Abdullah told the BBC that Britain was not doing enough in the war on terror. He made the comments hours before arriving in London for a state visit. "I believe that most countries are not taking this issue too seriously, including, unfortunately, Great Britain," he said through a translator. "We have sent information to Great Britain before the terrorist attacks in Britain, but unfortunately no action was taken and it may have been able to avert the tragedy." The king did not specify what information Saudi Arabia provided. However, the BBC reported Abdullah's remark was linked to a long-held Saudi leadership claim that it gave Britain information that might have averted the 2005 attack. Months before the July 7, 2005, attack in which four suicide bombers killed 52 people and wounded hundreds on London's transit network, Saudi Arabia told the British and U.S. governments that it had arrested a young Saudi man who confessed to raising money for a terrorist attack in crowded areas of the British capital, officials have told the Associated Press.

[..]

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...udi-king_N.htm

Why U.S. sticks by Musharraf



The Bush administration is not likely to break with the Pakistani general, given his backing in the fight against Islamic extremism. America's safety and the demands of the war on terror trump immediate concerns about democracy in Pakistan. That Bush administration perspective explains why the US – as disturbed as it may be by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's declaration of a state of emergency – is expected to refrain from steps that could weaken Pakistan's leader. President Bush has regarded Mr. Musharraf as a major ally in the fight against Islamic extremism.

So while US officials talk about reviewing the billions of dollars in mostly military assistance Pakistan receives from the US, a break with Musharraf over his authoritarian turn is seen as improbable. Anything more than intensified diplomacy – calling for a restoration of rights and for holding scheduled elections as soon as possible – is unlikely, at least over the short term. Although most analysts agree that the US options for influencing Musharraf are limited, they also say the time has come for a new Pakistan policy that is less Musharraf-centric. The military ruler, they say, may not last long at the helm of a nuclear power in a volatile region. In addition, it is increasingly clear that US interests in a stable Pakistan, free of Al Qaeda's influence, have not advanced under Musharraf.

"We have to start by acknowledging that we don't have that many options in this relationship. And we should take our history with Pakistan into account, which shows that any sticks we've wielded or sanctions we've imposed haven't had direct impact on Pakistan's actions," says Karl Inderfurth, a former assistant secretary for South Asian affairs who is now at George Washington University. "But we need to be engaged with the Pakistanis in this time of crisis. Our action should be nuanced and broad-based, and we should be consulting the international community on this."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reiterated Monday the US view that "the best path for Pakistan is to quickly return to a constitutional path and then to hold elections." That came after earlier comments she made – echoed by the White House – that no US action would be taken to jeopardize the Pakistani military's battle with Al Qaeda insurgents and their supporters in remote tribal territories. "I would be very surprised if anyone wants [President Bush] to ignore or set aside our concerns about terrorism," Secretary Rice said shortly after Musharraf declared a state of emergency Saturday. A White House spokesman had a similar comment: "We're obviously not going to do anything that will undermine the war on terror," said Gordon Johndroe. Rice says Washington will review its aid to Pakistan, which has received about $11 billion in US assistance since it became a close ally in fighting terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

As it tries to influence Musharraf, the United States may seek to pressure the Pakistani military – and indeed is already showing signs of doing so. The US Embassy said that a US-Pakistan Defense Consultative Group meeting to be held in Islamabad this week has been postponed – awaiting "conditions [that] are more conducive to achieve the important objectives of the meeting." Such signals to the Pakistani military could indirectly influence Musharraf to step back from actions that he claims are directed at Islamic militants but have come across more as a personal power grab.

"The most important actions the US can take are those that will catch the attention of the Pakistani military, which has never liked being at loggerheads with the Americans," says Husain Haqqani, a former Pakistani government official now at Boston University's Center for International Relations. The US military may be focused on Pakistan's fight with extremists, he says, but the country's rising political instability does not necessarily mean US military officials will favor a kid-glove approach to Musharraf. "They will see that if Musharraf is going to commit more troops to controlling demonstrators and riots in the streets, that will mean less attention to the war on terror," says Mr. Haqqani.

Pentagon officials say that US review of aid to Pakistan includes current funding and what has been proposed under the 2008 budget request from the Department of State. That includes $300 million in foreign military financing, $2 million for international military education and training, and another $32 million for international narcotics and law-enforcement programs. Also, as part of the foreign military-sales program, Congress has approved the sale of 32 F-16 jet fighters, half of which are new. The aid package also includes about $10 million for the nonproliferation antiterrorism and demining and related programs, or NADR. All such funding requests are through the Department of State. "It's fair to say that we are reviewing all of our assistance programs," said Bryan Whitman, a spokesman at the Pentagon Monday.

Some observers have drawn attention to the differences in approach of the Bush administration to recent antidemocratic measures by the military junta in Burma (also known as Myanmar) and Musharraf's moves. Bush was quick to publicly condemn Burma's leaders and to push for international sanctions. He was initially silent on Pakistan, but was expected to make a comment Monday afternoon. The responses suggest both the difference in the two country's strategic importance to the US and the opportunity the US may have for influencing Pakistan, Haqqani says.

"Of course Pakistan has a central role in the international confrontation with terrorism that was not a factor in addressing Burma," he says. "But it is also true that Burma's military rulers are quite ready to dismiss outside pressures, but that is not the case with Pakistan's rulers or the people in general. Most sectors of Pakistani society wish to avoid isolation from the rest of the world."

Still, Mr. Inderfurth says almost any punitive action the US might consider against Musharraf could easily backfire and end up hurting US interests. Pointing to the sale of 32 F-16s that Congress has approved, Inderfurth says, "To cut off that [sale] might seem like a logical place to show our displeasure – until you consider that such a move would do more to jeopardize the broad Pakistani public's estimation of the US than to undermine the Pakistani military." Noting that the long-sought F-16s have become a public symbol of how "the US is not a true friend of Pakistan," Inderfurth says, "It's just another example of how complicated this crucial relationship is, and how much attention it's going to require over the coming months."

Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1106/p01s07-usfp.htm