[size=18]Did Israel Kill The President Of Pakistan?[/size]The former U.S. Ambassador to India, John Dean, has accused Israel of being behind the assassination of Pakistan President General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in 1988.
Dean made the allegation in an article in the World Policy Journal. He said he believed the attack was carried out by Mossad, Israel's intelligence service.
It happened on August 17 1988. Pak One, Pakistan's equivalent of Air Force One, took off from a military air base outside of Bahawalpur in the late afternoon. On board was Pakistan's president, joint chief of staffs, and most of the Pakistan army's top generals, the U.S. Ambassador to pakistan Arnie Raphael and General Herbert M. Wassom, the chief U.S. military official in Pakistan, and a four-man crew. Within minutes the plane crashed and all 30 on board were killed.
The U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz pressed the FBI not to participate in the ensuing investigation, notwithstanding two very senior U.S. officials had been killed in the incident, and that a substantial team of investigators had already been assembled. Schultz was supported by the Pentagon.
The State Department actively promoted the notion that the incident was an accident and even leaked stories to that effect to several newspapers including the New York Times. The official investigation subsequently concluded the plane crashed as the result of sabotage, and not any mechanical failure.
Ambassador Dean, who served under Schultz, now says Israel brought the plane down.
Dean said he was often asked to persuade India to have closer ties with Israel.
Dean who was once Richard Nixon's White House Counsel went on to become the Ambassador to Denmark in 1975 and then Ambassador to Lebanon in 1978 before being appointed to similar posts in Thailand in 1981 and India in 1985.
It was in Lebanon between 1978 and 1981 that Dean first incurred the wrath of Israel. Caught up in a vicious civil war, Dean traveled the length and breadth of the country negotiating with more than a dozen different factions to try and restore peace. The U.S. had a strong presence in Lebanon as did Israel. Dean was a joint signatory on Lebanon's bank accounts with Lebanese President Elias Sarkis.
Dean was authorized to negotiate with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) if it was deemed to be in America’s “national security interests.” When an “interlocutor” in Washington wondered if the Palestinians could help release American diplomatic hostages being held in Tehran, Dean sought—and received—Palestinian help. PLO leader Yasser Arafat and his aide Abu Jihad themselves went to Tehran in 1979 and secured the release of 13 Americans. Never, Dean noted, did the two receive any thanks from Washington for their efforts.
Anyone who gets between the U.S. president and the prime minister of Israel “finds himself in trouble,” Dean was quoted as saying in The Washington Report.
Riding in his armored limousine in Beirut with ardently pro-Israel Congressman Steve Solarz, a bullet hit the car. “What’s that?” Solarz asked. “Just a bullet,” Dean replied, “but don’t worry. We are armored.” Solarz insisted on returning to the American Embassy, where he cabled home, “Arafat shot at me.”
According to The Washington Report, to stress his support for the sovereignty of Lebanon Dean always cabled protests to Tel Aviv and the State Department in Washington whenever Israeli planes intruded—as they frequently did—into Lebanese airspace. These reminders irritated U.S. Ambassador to Israel Sam Lewis, with whom Dean preserved cordial relations but who suffered to a notable degree from what the U.S. Foreign Service calls “localitis”.. Other irritants flowed from Dean’s urging Lebanese Christian leader Bashir Gemayel to stop seeing Israeli Mossad officers.
Dean’s staunch defense of Lebanese (and American) interests came to a head in the early evening of Aug. 27, 1980, when, according to all the evidence, said The Washington Report, Mossad tried but failed to assassinate Dean and his family. The long-rumored attempted murder of Dean by Mossad, was publicly confirmed for the first time in talk by Dean in Washington.
En-route from his residence in Lebanon’s hills to the Beirut residence of the AUB president, Dean’s limousine and convoy took 21 rifle bullets. The automobile bearing the ambassador and Mrs. Dean was also struck by two light anti-tank weapons. The shot-out tires on the Deans’ bulletproof car automatically reinflated. The second car, however, carrying their daughter and her fiancé, did not have bulletproof tires and was momentarily stranded. The security guards in the convoy’s third car pushed the daughter and her fiancé into the Deans’ vehicle, and they sped away. Incredibly, none of the ambassador’s party or security guards were seriously wounded. Some shots struck where Dean was sitting, but bulletproof plastic windows saved his life, said The Washington Report.
Picked up by Lebanese security, the anti-tank canisters had made-in-America markings. After unanswered telegrams to the State Department and all but silent responses to his telephone inquiries, Dean eventually learned that the anti-tank weapons were sold and shipped to Israel in 1974. [b]Dean apparently mused to himself on the irony of an American ambassador being subjected to an Israeli assassination attempt with American weapons supplied to Israel for defense.[/b]
On the assassination of Arafat’s personal assistant, Abu Hassan, in early 1979, Ambassador Dean was told by the Lebanese intelligence service that three Mossad officers, bearing Belgian and Australian passports, had come to Beirut masquerading as tourists for the purpose of killing Abu Hassan, whose greatest “drawback,” in Dean‘s opinion, was that he was close to the Americans.
While Ambassador Dean did not commend himself to Israel, he very much gained the respect and affection of Lebanon which, on his departure form Beirut, awarded him its highest decoration. And out of the turmoil of Lebanon he also kept the confidence of the United States, which subsequently honored him with the additional ambassadorships, in Thailand and India.
It was in India in 1988, three years after his appointment, [b]that the Pakistan president was assassinated, and when Dean conveyed his views to the State Department, that Israel was responsible, he was accused of being mentally unbalanced, and was relieved of his duties.[/b]
Now Dean is challenging the State Department's charge and is calling for a fresh inquiry into the plane crash that killed the Pakistan President U.S. Ambassador along with twenty-nine others.
His theory though will compete with a number of other such allegations made since the high-profile crash.
Soviet Russia at the time was in the final throes of its war with Pakistan's neighbour Afghanistan and was irritated by Zia's close affiliation with the United States. The U.S. ruled out any Soviet involvement as it concluded it would not have engaged in an attack against a U.S. ambassador and senior military chief, notwithstanding Raphael and Wassom were not scheduled to travel on Pak One on the day of the crash.
[url=http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/6/1228/105/]MPACUK[/url]
Interesting
So was Dean mentally unbalanced, or was he telling the truth? Was Israel involved? Why (how?) was Israel involved in everything? Did Israel shoot Jr?
Any1 heard the miracle of Holy Quran Taweez that General Zia ul Haq Shaheed alayhi rahmah always wore?
Apparently the taweez that General Sahib wore remained completely intact.
It is obvious that Israel and US were responsible for this assault.
Ya ALLAH Madad.
Haq Chaar Yaar
It is SUSPECTED third parties were involved.
This event did make the majority of Pakistan anti-USA, hich was increased after Pakistan was given a hard shoulder soon after this event...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Salam
General Zia was an evil dictator.
He was bad for Pakistan.
Good riddance to him.
Omrow
That is too many absolutes.
He was good and bad.
Noone is one dimensional.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
General Zia ul Haq was possibly the best leader pakistan has had to date. MashaALLAH he did much for islaam in pakistan and was really a great man.
Ya ALLAH Madad.
Haq Chaar Yaar
He funded Islamist parties.
Great deal of good that has done for Pakistan.
:roll:
and he also did not do alot at the same time...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Salam
Excuse me monster. Thats not true.
He funded the fundamentalists.
Omrow
Give me a few days inshaALLAH. I will present a mini case in favour of General Zia ul Haq Sahib.
As a preliminary yes he did support the Madaaris and took advice from the islamic parties. I view that as a good thing. The problem with General Zia ul Haq is not that he took into consideration the islamic parties and increased their influence thus, but rather that he chose according to some the wrong parties.
General Zia ul Haq's period saw an increase in the influence most notably of Jamaat e Islami (JI). and to a lesser but still significant extent Jamiat ul Ulama e Islam (JUI). Hence those religious leaders whose power and influence was based strongly on feudal system etc felt that they were being disadvantaged. Hence there is some anger on the behalf of those people aswell as the atheist and apostate elements of paki society who couldnt stomach taking advice from ulama on how the country should be run.
Anyway, give me a few days inshaALLAH. I will return with more info.
Ya ALLAH Madad.
Haq Chaar Yaar
Omrow, by definition we are all fundamentalists. :roll:
Zia was quite fond of the TJs.
lol. Now the truth is coming out. General Zia ul Haq Sahib came from a conservative background which rested on orthodoxy so obviously sectarian tension will colour the vision of some people.
Ya ALLAH Madad.
Haq Chaar Yaar
Yes, Med. The truth. Shiny shiny truth.
Truth has come and falshood shall perish, for falsehood by its very nature is doomed to perish.
[size=9]sorry couldnt resist, hehehehe[/size]
Ya ALLAH Madad.
Haq Chaar Yaar
Salam
Excuse me boys.
WE are NOT all fundamentalists.
YOU may be one. I am NOT.
Wahhabis might be fundamentalists. What else can they be other than narrow minded bigots.
Now, I do not know whether or not General Zia, the dictator, was himself a Wahhabi, but he certainly was in bed with them.
Omrow
Can we eave the 'fundamentalist' debate... it all boils down to your definiotn of it.
My definition of holding to the Fundamentals of Islam makes us all fundamentalists to some extent.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Omrow,
The term 'fundamentalist' was originally used to refer to conservative American Protestants in the 1920s. They were so-called because they believed that the Bible was the [i]fundamental[/i] word of God.
Muslims genuinely believe that the Quran is the word of God. Therefore, by definition we are all fundamentalists.
That is why many people find that the labelling of Osama bin Laden and co. as 'fundamentalist' is unsuitable.
Salam
Thank you for reminding us of the Christian heritage of our American friends.
However, definitions change. And with the arrival of the Salafi idiots on the scene, and Saudi oil to back them, the term has come to be used in such a way that it is now applied particularly to edgy muslims who simply don't know how to chill.
All this in no way changes the fact that General Zia was a complete moron, fundamentalist or no fundamentalist.
Omrow
True, definitions change.
But it is possible to change them back.
That's not what I was getting at.Salam
In case you missed it above, I shall once more give the current definition of the word.
A fundamentalist is a person who is "a narrow minded bigot."
Omrow
Oh Omrow,
I know that.
But it doesn't have to be that way.
You don't have to converse using [i]their[/i] words and definitions.
Why not say 'extremist', 'radical', 'militant', etc?
Salam
I know you know that.
What I was saying was that we don't hold the rights to the English Dictionary. Dons at Oxford do.
Are you suggesting a raid on their workshop ?
Omrow
I'm suggesting we re-define the word 'fundamentalist'.
Are you getting hung up on it after reading 'Battle for God' by Karren Armstrong?
It's not been 100 years since it was used for American Protestants. People will look back and think that it still meant the same thing.
Oh Omrow you really are a Moron, it even rhymes,
If we using words like they used nowadays, lets go for it.
You are an Islamist fundamentalist jihaadist muslimist.....want me to continue.
Brother Beast, tell him whose boss
_____________- -SupeRazor- -_______________
Some ppl make their goals the stars.
They may live n die n never reach the stars,
but in the darkness of the night, those stars will guide them to their destination.
Becuz they made them in their eyesight
Salam
Ofcourse we have a right to define words. But I dont think Oxford boys will let in any of our definitions.
And Razor. You are not very sharp are you. Perhaps you should call yourself a spade. A more accurate description.
If you had bothered to read a few posts above you, you would not have made an idiot out of yourself.
Omrow
Well Omrow your talking about using fundamentalist etc in the current context, well then what for the aforementioned words?
If we were to take the words for what they are suppose to mean, then we would all be offended. But like Beast said, we all hav a lil bit of Fundamental in us.
And also, Dunt speak so badly about he dead, have a lil bit of respect. Maybe to your understanding of pakistani politics General Zia ul Haq wasnt the best of them, but i know of many who supported the work he did and what he did for the country.
But im sure General Zia ul Haq while they were running the country did what they did thinking it was the best thing to do.
Saying such things is just plain wrong, whether or not you supported their work.[/b]
_____________- -SupeRazor- -_______________
Some ppl make their goals the stars.
They may live n die n never reach the stars,
but in the darkness of the night, those stars will guide them to their destination.
Becuz they made them in their eyesight
Salam
A lot of people support Satan too.
Thats doesn't make the Old Nick good.
Zia was a military dictator who suppressed the people of Pakistan.
He spent all of the money building nuclear weapons.
This is not what the public wanted. He had his own personal agenda. He was an evil man. I hope God sorts him out. Its a good thing that Israeli Mossad got rid of him. He was stealing poor people's money to make bombs.
Omrow
You could say that about every Pk leader since Zulfiqar Bhutto - and pretty much about every other leader of a nuclear power and wannabe nuclear power.
Salam
No. Britain does not steal money and use it to make weapons.
Neither does US, France, Germany, China, Israel, Norway, Spain, Italy and so on.
The reason is because these nations are democratic. People can remove their leaders if they mess up.
Whereas, General Zia was not liked by the people. They rejoiced when his plane was blown up. Whole Pakistan was thanking God that the dictator was dead.
Omrow
All countries who have nuclear power tax their people to get it. This includes taxing poor people.
As yet, and AFAIK, only New Zealand has elected a gov which was anti-nuclear.
yet Bush and Blair are still in office... :roll:
[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/Dust.html]Dust, X-Men[/url]
Pages