• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How come no invasion of Pakistan?

Lucidthots

Banned
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
979
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Can anyone answer this question?
 

DivineComedy

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
129
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Lucidthots said:
Can anyone answer this question?
You asked, “How come no invasion of Pakistan?”

“Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, and Sudan remain the seven governments that the US Secretary of State has designated as state sponsors of international terrorism.”
http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/1999report/sponsor.html

I am sorry but Pakistan wasn’t listed there.

As a condition of a cease-fire it said that a State Sponsor of Terrorism through out the entire Clinton Administration would “not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism.“ http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

I am really sorry, but I didn’t see anything about Pakistan in there. {put a wink here}

“Throughout the year, the Taliban continued to host Usama Bin Ladin--indicted in November 1998 for the bombings of two US Embassies in East Africa--despite US and UN sanctions, a unanimously adopted United Security Council resolution, and other international pressure to deliver him to stand trial in the United States or a third country. The United States repeatedly made clear to the Taliban that they will be held responsible for any terrorist acts undertaken by Bin Ladin while he is in their territory.”
http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/1999report/asia.html#Afghanistan

Nope, there is absolutely nothing about Pakistan in there.

“First…The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people…Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people…the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade…Third…The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq…” (Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders World Islamic Front Statement 23 February 1998 Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin)

I didn’t see anything about Pakistan in there either.

So I don’t think Pakistan had anything at all to do with 911! Or I should say there is no link, right?
 
Last edited:

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Because deushe bag hippy protesters like you would start creating conspiracy theorys about it.
[MOD MODE]
This is not debating. It is inappropriate for this forum. If you'de like to use pet names and whisper sweet nothings like this while you explore your personal feelings for your fellow posters, take it to The Basement.
[/MOD MODE]
 
Top Bottom