I suppose theres some cultural aspect to this which I may not understand.

But shouldn't they understand the secrecy needed to carry out the operation? Even if Pakistan were actually against him, the point of pride in "If he's in our land, we'll deal with it" is somewhat childish pride. If they found him first, they could have him killed.

And now they want to kick out NATO and drones over this. It's hard to not say they're being childish or are actually helping terrorism.

Can anyone else think of any other possibilities that are capable of explaining Pakistan's current stance WITHOUT putting them in league with terrorism? And capable of explaining their subsequent actions?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapc...den/index.html

(Please stay on topic/question. Saying Pakistan is terrorist is off-topic)

Well, I understand why pakistan was mad about us going into there territory and killing someone, but we said after 911 "when we find him he's dead". They should have seen that, I mean he killed thousands of people, do you think we were just going to let that go? I think pakistan should get over it.

I was also surprised when all this happened, to me, it was the first president that stuck to his word. He said he would find and kill Bin Laden, well. He actually did.

Fnugget.... I just don't want to discuss about my country but i will say some words.

The truth is, our governers are afraid because if WE killed him, Al-Qaida will not forgive our country and will start thier "Jihaad"(War) against us.

And yeah another thing, " HAHAHAHAHAHA" for our pride. We can't even handle our own problems in our country, how are we supposed to kill the world's deadliest terrorist?

As a US citizen, I imagine my government might be a tad miffed if a secret Pakistani operation was conducted on US soil to assassinate a target of the Pakistani Government. Regardless of the debatable merit of the assassination.

I'm imagining the opposite

I'd be like "oh sweet that guy is dead now, who cares who killed him"

@1handclap: The target is a terrorist, supposedly an enemy of BOTH nations. I'd say it's first come first serve.

@LeL0uch: So I suppose the anti-american acts that followed are to prevent extremist retaliation as well? I can understand that. It's like a witness testifying against a gang/mafia. They're afraid they (or their loved ones) will be killed if they speak. Except this is on an international level. I would think almost everyone would support helping defend Pakistan against terrorism if they helped, but obviously we could not prevent every attack.
So even if they were sending secret messages to the US, the world and the media need to think the terrorists won't target Pakistan.

Even so, that seems like self defense for the government only, and not for the betterment of all of Pakistan. But we know how governments can be sometimes.

@1handclap: if Pakistan already had a base in America, and America were supporting that base and its actions, we probably wouldn't be all that miffed.

fyi, this is the holier-than-thou attitude i referenced in your "terrible posts" thread.

And actually the government has plainly stated that they will not release the photo (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42900991...n-death-photo/). The government's "gruesome" argument is absolute nonsense, and so is the idea that showing the photo will piss off the world. 1) It's no more gruesome than any of the violent movies most people have seen. 2) It's probably the US imperial foreign policy and violation of international law that invites retaliation, not having photos of one of its manifestations.

Skepticism about whether the official story is true has nothing to do with endorsing conspiracy theories - after all, we have seen absolutely zero evidence that the official story is true. Believing the official story without evidence is just as bad as believing a conspiracy theory without evidence.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if a photo is released after all, as they have changed just about every other aspect of the story since it was originally produced (for example http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54162.html). Additionally, the AP is reminding the government (post-ironically?) that it's the media's job to censor information, not the government's, and that the photo should be released at least to the press (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...n-photo/37510/).

@FNugget:
You can't just walk in to someone else's country and shoot people up without asking. I would not want assassinations to take place in my country either.

Most countries are outraged by US's actions.


The US is the one acting childish in their homicidal rampage for revenge. "Justice has been served" hahahahahahahaha idiots.

You are very right, friend.

US should have asked before bursting into our country.

What if they come to our country in future again and try to harm our country?