America threatened to Bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age!

Sunstar

Child of Sun and Star
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
679
Reaction score
0
Points
11
Musharraf: US threatened to bomb Pakistan


The President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, reveals in an interview to be aired at the weekend that, soon after the terror attacks of 11 September 2001, the United States threatened to bomb his country "back into the Stone Age" if he didn't offer its co-operation in fighting terrorism and the Taliban.
The revelation was made by General Musharraf during his visit to New York for the annual General Assembly of the United Nations. It comes after a week in which the US has been criticised by a number of foreign leaders for trying to impose its will on other nations.
Talking to a correspondent of the CBS news magazine 60 Minutes to be shown on Sunday evening, General Musharraf claims that the warning was delivered to his own director of intelligence by the US Assistant Secretary of State, Richard Armitage. "The intelligence director told me that [Armitage] said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age'," General Musharraf said, according to excerpts of the interview released by CBS last night.
President George Bush has been battered at the UN this week, notably from President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who bluntly called him the "devil", and by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Shortly after 9/11, Pakistan indeed ended its support of the Taliban and became a frontline ally of America in the "war on terror". However, General Musharraf makes no secret of his distaste for the strong-arm tactics he faced from Mr Armitage. "I think it was a very rude remark," he says in the interview. "One has to think and take actions in the interests of the nation, and that's what I did."
In a press conference yesterday, meanwhile, Mr Ahmadinjad tempered his repeated outbursts this week against the US and also Britain with the suggestion that contacts between his government and European officials on resolving their nuclear stand-off are "moving down the right path".
Even so, Mr Ahmadinejad could not resist the chance once more to pour scorn on countries, which, he said, "believe they have more right to rule world affairs than anyone else". His success in taking the media limelight in New York - in the General Assembly, in television interviews and at a meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations on Wednesday - has clearly got under the skin of American officials.
The Iranian President repeatedly refused yesterday to say whether Iran would abide by a UN resolution forbidding the delivery of arms to Hizbollah fighters in southern Lebanon. Nor was he prepared to withdraw the remark attributed to him earlier this year that Israel should be "wiped off the map". Skirting the question, he did say: "I am not anti-Jewish. I respect all Jews."
He several times took rhetorical flight when asked about the contention made by the West that Iran is enriching uranium as a step towards developing a nuclear bomb. He asked why the US was not destroying its arsenals and said that the issue was a "pretext" taken by Washington to impede Iran. "They are not interested in the bomb, they want to stop the development of our country," he said.
Tellingly, however, the President did not seek to undermine the negotiations themselves. A European official said talks between the EU foreign affairs commissioner, Xavier Solana, and his Iranian counterpart, Ali Larajani, which were meant to take place in New York, were now expected to happen next week. Those contacts aim to coax Iran into engaging in longer-term talks on condition that it agrees to suspend its enrichment activities first.
"We will tell you when the time arrives" for Iran to enact such a suspension, Mr Ahmadenijad said, suggesting he does not rule out meeting the condition. While the EU and the US publicly insist that no formal talks will begin until after that suspension, there are signs of flexibility on timing, particularly from Paris.
Mr Ahmadinejad said the success of any long-term talks would depend on Western nations offering certain guarantees to Tehran. He said he was looking for "guarantees of the enforcement of provisions that are agreed upon".


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1696179.ece



Why am I not surprised by this! Just another example of America's 'peaceful' diplomacy.
 
It really bothers me that diplomacy doesn't even seem to be considered anymore. The first reaction is to go to war.
 
GoldenAgeHero said:
if it is true, then everyone has the right to be pissed at america.
Like they dont have enough right to be pissed at us already?
Hopefully this isnt true.
I am so scared living in this country today, not because of other nations terrorists.
The American government is creating their very own home grown terrorists.

It pains me to live in this country and read whats going on. Im suprised everyone hasnt had a party conveniently forgetting americas invite to discuss amongst themselves what to do with us.

Hopefully they have already but hopefully they will wait until atleast the next presidential election to act and hopefully it wont be too late for everyone and hopefully the election will be fair and without "out of the ordinary incidents" attached to it like the last two.

And if all my hopes come to pass hopefully we can regain some kind of comradery with everyone else that wont continue this sad 'spoiled child under god' movement crap that has diminished the true love I have for this country that allows me to walk two blocks and be submerged in a completely different culture than the last two blocks and love every minute of it.

And hopefully I wont have to justify what ive said in this post, backing it all up with facts, because these are just my hopefullys....with Liberty and Justice for all.
 
Speaking of "under god," I think this phrase needs to be taken out of the Pledge of Allegience. It was only placed in there during the McCarthy era as a way to give the finger to communists. It's not needed anymore and I believe that it violates the part of the Constitution that calls for NO establishment of a religion.
 
sooo... does that mean that's where they're going to film the next Ice Age movie?
 
KingOfDreams said:
It really bothers me that diplomacy doesn't even seem to be considered anymore. The first reaction is to go to war.

Exactly.
 
But of course you'd believe the Pakistani (the ones giving Bin Laden safe haven) before you'd believe the U.S. right?? :whatever:

Why wait 5 years to say this??
 
celldog said:
But of course you'd believe the Pakistani (the ones giving Bin Laden safe haven) before you'd believe the U.S. right?? :whatever:

Why wait 5 years to say this??

Probably to add more anti-US fuel to the fire.
 
I believe it. With Bush's "Either you're with us or you're against us" mentality, I do believe they would threaten Pakistan like that.
 
Jan Irisi said:
I believe it. With Bush's "Either you're with us or you're against us" mentality, I do believe they would threaten Pakistan like that.


Why wait 5 years?
 
GoldenAgeHero said:
if it is true, then everyone has the right to be pissed at america.

why doesn't everyone ever get bad at these muslim countries.... christ sake, they harbor terrorists, fund terrorists, train terrorists, train sucide bombers, they treat their women like objects, no one has rights over there, almost all people live in poverty while their leaders make millions offer their suffering


and yes, the US are the bad guys as always....
 
KingOfDreams said:
Speaking of "under god," I think this phrase needs to be taken out of the Pledge of Allegience. It was only placed in there during the McCarthy era as a way to give the finger to communists. It's not needed anymore and I believe that it violates the part of the Constitution that calls for NO establishment of a religion.

boo hoo.... boo hoo... deal with it.... all it means is that this country was founded on the belief of a higher power..... YES, that is a terrible thing...
 
If it is true, it is a shame, but I have my doubts. Why would this story take five years to surface?
 
TheMcGuffin said:
If it is true, it is a shame, but I have my doubts. Why would this story take five years to surface?

becuase it is a fabricated lie... come on..... probably from the same news source baghdad bob used...... use your head people.....
 
JokerNick said:
becuase it is a fabricated lie... come on..... probably from the same news source baghdad bob used...... use your head people.....

That is the problem, many people do not use their heads...it's a shame really. You would think people could see through this but that is not so.
 
Downhere said:
That is the problem, many people do not use their heads...it's a shame really.

a person is smart
people are dumb
 
KingOfDreams said:
It really bothers me that diplomacy doesn't even seem to be considered anymore. The first reaction is to go to war.

Actually, diplomacy works wonders if you're willing to back it up with military might.

To try and use diplomacy without military back up is simply useless.
 
Some of you are actually believing that *****?
The leader of a country that wont do ***** about the terrorists running around his country and wont let the US go into his country to root out these bastids is telling the world that the US threatened to bomb him back to the stoneage? right........

We were good enough to try and let him handle the situation and believe that he would try and do something about Bin Laden and yet Bin Laden is still loose today. We should have just went in there hunted him down.
 
Sunstar said:
Why am I not surprised by this! Just another example of America's 'peaceful' diplomacy.
Yeah....I guess that's why Bush and Musharraf are standing side by side, smiling, and laughing, giving a press conference right now....because they hate each other so much.:whatever:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"