Incompetent or Involved?

by Hellsangel Wed May 04, 2011 10:41 am

by Arwen LOTR Wed May 04, 2011 10:50 am

Involved is binary - either you are involved or not. Nothing like half involved akin to half pregnant.

Incompetency is a scale....

by Guest Wed May 04, 2011 11:49 am

My vote: Involved... pakis no no dogooders, and blatant liars.

by Merlot Daruwala Wed May 04, 2011 1:22 pm

Definitely involved in protecting Osama. Definitely no involved in the mission.

But also incompetent for:
- Not keeping the ISI under control
- Not anticipating that those jokers might be keeping him right under their noses
- Not thinking of plausible deniability
- Not detecting the US mission and scrambling fast enough to intercept it (for all they knew, it could have been Indians out to kill Dawood - yeah, that's far-fetched to the point of ridiculous, but still)

by Propagandhi711 Wed May 04, 2011 1:28 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Definitely involved in protecting Osama. Definitely no involved in the mission.

But also incompetent for:
- Not keeping the ISI under control
- Not anticipating that those jokers might be keeping him right under their noses
- Not thinking of plausible deniability
- Not detecting the US mission and scrambling fast enough to intercept it (for all they knew, it could have been Indians out to kill Dawood - yeah, that's far-fetched to the point of ridiculous, but still)

that ofcourse assumes that the military brass/political machinery was not complict and it's strictly an ISI operation.

by Guest Wed May 04, 2011 1:30 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Definitely no involved in the mission.

wrong. my daily focused on xinhua's reporting of the event (and it's aftermath). as per xinhua, the pakis were hand in glove. the electricity to abbottabad was cut off before the event is the most telling clue. also, all the voyeuristic cameras in the neighbourhood that recorded the events were smashed by the paki police after the event. is it not surprising that we have no reports from the self styled e-journalists?

by Propagandhi711 Wed May 04, 2011 1:33 pm

guru, the whole action lasted 40 mins. who in that parts of the world responds and gets to action site within 40 mins? also power loss in india and pakistan, is it that surprising? couldnt the US with it's superduper technology onboard on that blackhawk have assets on the ground that cut power and such?

by Guest Wed May 04, 2011 1:39 pm

Nobody is safe in pakiSatan, even osama bin laden. Incompetent Razz

( cudnt keep the blank check from uncle sam)
Everybody is safe in India, even ajmal kasab. Incompetent x-( wats happening with ajmal lately...is he on fb? grr

by Merlot Daruwala Wed May 04, 2011 1:48 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:
that ofcourse assumes that the military brass/political machinery was not complict and it's strictly an ISI operation.

I can't imagine an official program foolish enough to harbor a fellow with a bullseye painted on his back, right in the heart of the country, that too next to a military academy. Plausible deniability's thrown out of the window. If the brass was complicit, they'd keep him in the FATA or some such lawless place - even PoK - where they could always claim the official Paki writ doesn't run.

by nevada Wed May 04, 2011 1:55 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:
that ofcourse assumes that the military brass/political machinery was not complict and it's strictly an ISI operation.

I can't imagine an official program foolish enough to harbor a fellow with a bullseye painted on his back, right in the heart of the country, that too next to a military academy. Plausible deniability's thrown out of the window. If the brass was complicit, they'd keep him in the FATA or some such lawless place - even PoK - where they could always claim the official Paki writ doesn't run.

Not a bad idea to keep him in a least expected location, isn't it? They probably kept him close so that they could keep an eye on him without too much effort.

by artood2 Wed May 04, 2011 2:03 pm

for a moment, I thought it was about sulekha.

by charvaka Wed May 04, 2011 4:15 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Incompetent or Involved?

Pakistan - involved.
Sulekha - incompetent.

by Sponsored content

Incompetent or Involved?

Incompetent or Involved?

Re: Incompetent or Involved?

Re: Incompetent or Involved?

Re: Incompetent or Involved?

Re: Incompetent or Involved?

Re: Incompetent or Involved?

Re: Incompetent or Involved?

Re: Incompetent or Involved?

Re: Incompetent or Involved?

Re: Incompetent or Involved?

Re: Incompetent or Involved?

Re: Incompetent or Involved?

Re: Incompetent or Involved?