You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Afghanistan/South Asia
Three out of four Brit boomers visited Pak
2005-07-17
Three of the four London suicide bombers recently visited Pakistan and investigators are probing whether they met with Al Qaeda-linked militant groups, said security officials in Islamabad on Saturday. Mohammad Sidique Khan (30) and Shehzad Tanweer (22) arrived together at Karachi Airport in November 2004 and returned to Britain in early February. Hasib Hussain (18) the youngest of the three ethnic Pakistani Britons came separately at an undisclosed time last year, also to Karachi, and went back to Britain shortly afterwards, added the officials. The security officials said they had not been able to trace the movements of the bombers while in Pakistan.

Iqbal Khattak adds: Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao denied reports that any arrests were made in Faisalabad or Multan. “We are fulfilling our responsibility by helping the British government. But I would not like to give the details of our assistance,” he told reporters.
Posted by:Fred

#12  Separately, would we need to conquer Pakistan, or simply defeat it? Defeat would mean the Pakistanis would be too busy sorting themselves out to pose a threat beyond their borders, if done thoroughly enough, whereas conquest would involve building a society from scratch, with problems like Afghanistan and Iraq at least cubed, I would think.
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-07-17 23:56  

#11  My apologies to all the current and former non-civilians out there. I meant "uninformed", of course. If only I drank coffee!
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-07-17 23:52  

#10  love the surveillance cameras that London has. That would be great here huh?
I hope the recent retaliation near the border of Pakistan doesn't get anyone fired up to find fault with America. I hope they see it for what it was, and is. That angry Muslim in the other article was probably holding a koran in his other hand.
Posted by: Jan   2005-07-17 14:50  

#9  We don't need to fight the Pakiwak Kalle. We have friends (likely temporary) in the region. We do need a line of communication to Kabul tho and overland thru the otherStans is to elongated.

India takes out the PakiWakis in 5 weeks without Chinee intervention. then it would take 12 weeks.
Posted by: Shipman   2005-07-17 14:37  

#8  If we have to go to war against Pakistan we'll be in serious trouble. The country is v.large, has nukes, and is full of Islamofascists (probably more than any other Moslem country). I can't see anything good coming out of that area. We'd have to be in total destruction mode to take on Pakistan. And that would have to mean an all-out nuke war against all Moslem countries at the same time.

I hope it doesn't end like that. If we get there, the Moslems will have forced our hand all the way to Armageddon.

Having said that, let's make sure Moslems understand Mecca and all their "holy" cities are on the immediate hitlist should they launch another attack on US soil. Will Mecca and Islamabad do to Moslems what Hiroshima and Nagasaki did to the Japanese?
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever)   2005-07-17 13:28  

#7  Jules

In this area an ally is country who is earmarked for an ulterior round of regimle change.
Posted by: JFM   2005-07-17 12:20  

#6  Eventually the Pak government will have to give the bad guys up or will find themselves being marched on by us when we are done in Afghan.
Posted by: 49 pan   2005-07-17 10:19  

#5  Because, perhaps, Musharraf is much, much better than any alternative? Maybe we would prefer a foam-at-the-mouth Mad Mullah in charge of the nuclear weapons instead?
Posted by: gromky   2005-07-17 09:47  

#4  Pakiland is an ally because we need a land line of communication to Afghanistan. We really need more C-17s.
Posted by: Shipman   2005-07-17 08:35  

#3  The bottom line was that these four were British citizens no matter where they visited. Do we deny Britain as an ally? Methinks that this cancer is more than nationalities and lies with religious beliefs. They were not Presbeterians.
Posted by: john   2005-07-17 07:37  

#2  Bush names Pakistan as an ally just as he names Saudi Arabia. Our troops are pretty busy right now with the first battles of this war, so the other targets will have to wait their turn... unless they somehow manage to fix themselves in the meantime.

Just my uniformed opinion, of course. ;-)
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-07-17 07:30  

#1  For the life of me, I cannot understand, and have not been able to understand, why we have claimed Pakistan is an ally through this Iraq war. Their "ally" status has proved to be as treacherous and ridiculous as that of Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: jules 2   2005-07-17 03:08  

00:00