Common Pakistanis US Foreign Policy
Nasim Hassan March 26, 2009
#126 Posted by _ar_jun87 on March 29, 2009 4:46:25 pm
kuldip nayyar..i have talked to soldiers who've been on multiple OEF deployments...the whole chain of command is chomping at the bit to take the fight into pakiland..
in fact, last september's special forces raid might have been unique in the sense that it was sort of semi-acknowledged. you can bet your last canadian $$ that there have and will continue to be a lot more..
UK backs Pakistan offensive
Monday, March 30, 2009
News Desk
LONDON: Britain has offered its full backing for a renewed military offensive inside Pakistan, as UK ministers confirmed the country was now “part of a single campaign� alongside Afghanistan.
British Defence Secretary John Hutton said the UK supported targeting Pakistan-based Taliban and al-Qaeda positions and urged Europe to begin offering assistance to eradicate insurgents in the tribal regions bordering Afghanistan.
Confirming that Britain was being drawn into a widening regional conflict, Hutton said the time had come to target the Taliban and al-Qaeda havens inside Pakistan. In his most explicit statement of intent against Pakistan, Hutton said the military objectives in the region must now have “an equal focus on both countries�.
He added: “AQ [al-Qaeda] is in retreat, scuttling across the border into Pakistan. Trying to buy time. Desperate to regroup. That is why there must be no let-up... there can be no escape, no hiding place.�
He indicated that Britain, which has deep historical ties with Pakistan and remains its largest trading partner in Europe, must play a principal role in supporting the US military effort in the region.
The defence secretary said: “In Europe, we can no longer offload the tough questions about how we deal effectively with AQ and the Taliban in Pakistan to the US. “The political burden of dealing with the Pakistan side of the border must be shared. And there are many European countries with strong ties to Pakistan that can more effectively share that burden with America.�
An MoD spokesman said Britain was ready to offer military, political and diplomatic support to a renewed offensive in the tribal lands, but what precisely that entailed was dependent on the resources other Nato members were prepared to offer. However, the initial aim would be to support the Pakistani government, rather than place British forces on the ground inside the country.
Pentagon spokesman Lt-Col Mark Wright told a British newspaper that the US had already offered to launch “joint-military operations� with the Frontier Corps in the tribal areas. Additional military resources are also likely to be deployed to the region once Britain withdraws its 4,000-strong force from Iraq this July, with moves to increase troop numbers in Afghanistan from 8,300 to potentially above 10,000 within a year.
The new-found focus on Pakistan will dominate Nato’s 60th anniversary summit in Strasbourg this week, in which Britain and the US will attempt to drum up more support for the twin Afghanistan and Pakistan — AfPak — mission. Defence officials in Whitehall are increasingly exasperated that, even as the conflict broadens, prominent Nato members are not pulling their weight. Hutton condemned “the massive leadership imbalance� between Europe and the US in Nato. He added: “It’s an imbalance set to grow in the coming months, as America commits vastly more resources of every kind to the mission in Afghanistan.�
in fact, last september's special forces raid might have been unique in the sense that it was sort of semi-acknowledged. you can bet your last canadian $$ that there have and will continue to be a lot more..
UK backs Pakistan offensive
Monday, March 30, 2009
News Desk
LONDON: Britain has offered its full backing for a renewed military offensive inside Pakistan, as UK ministers confirmed the country was now “part of a single campaign� alongside Afghanistan.
British Defence Secretary John Hutton said the UK supported targeting Pakistan-based Taliban and al-Qaeda positions and urged Europe to begin offering assistance to eradicate insurgents in the tribal regions bordering Afghanistan.
Confirming that Britain was being drawn into a widening regional conflict, Hutton said the time had come to target the Taliban and al-Qaeda havens inside Pakistan. In his most explicit statement of intent against Pakistan, Hutton said the military objectives in the region must now have “an equal focus on both countries�.
He added: “AQ [al-Qaeda] is in retreat, scuttling across the border into Pakistan. Trying to buy time. Desperate to regroup. That is why there must be no let-up... there can be no escape, no hiding place.�
He indicated that Britain, which has deep historical ties with Pakistan and remains its largest trading partner in Europe, must play a principal role in supporting the US military effort in the region.
The defence secretary said: “In Europe, we can no longer offload the tough questions about how we deal effectively with AQ and the Taliban in Pakistan to the US. “The political burden of dealing with the Pakistan side of the border must be shared. And there are many European countries with strong ties to Pakistan that can more effectively share that burden with America.�
An MoD spokesman said Britain was ready to offer military, political and diplomatic support to a renewed offensive in the tribal lands, but what precisely that entailed was dependent on the resources other Nato members were prepared to offer. However, the initial aim would be to support the Pakistani government, rather than place British forces on the ground inside the country.
Pentagon spokesman Lt-Col Mark Wright told a British newspaper that the US had already offered to launch “joint-military operations� with the Frontier Corps in the tribal areas. Additional military resources are also likely to be deployed to the region once Britain withdraws its 4,000-strong force from Iraq this July, with moves to increase troop numbers in Afghanistan from 8,300 to potentially above 10,000 within a year.
The new-found focus on Pakistan will dominate Nato’s 60th anniversary summit in Strasbourg this week, in which Britain and the US will attempt to drum up more support for the twin Afghanistan and Pakistan — AfPak — mission. Defence officials in Whitehall are increasingly exasperated that, even as the conflict broadens, prominent Nato members are not pulling their weight. Hutton condemned “the massive leadership imbalance� between Europe and the US in Nato. He added: “It’s an imbalance set to grow in the coming months, as America commits vastly more resources of every kind to the mission in Afghanistan.�
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#125 Posted by SPY on March 29, 2009 4:46:16 pm
"Any group or nation that wants to have successful relations with Pakistan and the Muslim World must respect Islam."
Hah...Nobody in right senses wants to disrespect islam, rather it is the actions of the Islamic followers and Pakistan positioning itself as terrorist epicenter of the world, which is getting them all the (dis)respect and the shame.
Hah...Nobody in right senses wants to disrespect islam, rather it is the actions of the Islamic followers and Pakistan positioning itself as terrorist epicenter of the world, which is getting them all the (dis)respect and the shame.
#124 Posted by _ar_jun87 on March 29, 2009 4:41:40 pm
95% Afghan Taliban want to reconcile: ex-commander
* Governor of Musa Qila says security concerns keeping most Taliban from defecting to government
MUSA QALA: As many as 95 percent of the Afghan Taliban are willing to lay down their arms but are afraid they will be killed for defecting because the government cannot ensure their safety, a former commander said on Sunday.
The new United States administration says the war cannot be won by military means alone and its strategy review announced on Friday refers to the need to bring some of the insurgents in from the cold. “Ninety-five percent of the Taliban want to reconcile with the government if they can be assured security,� Mullah Abdul Salam, a former high-ranking Taliban commander and now governor of Musa Qala in southern Helmand province, told Reuters.
“But the government of Afghanistan cannot ensure their safety. If they defect to the government, the other Taliban will kill them. They are fighting for their lives,� said Salam. The government must promise to keep safe those insurgents who make peace, Salam said, but most of them are hedging their bets until it is strong enough to do so. The Taliban “are just observing the security situation. At the moment the government is not much stronger than them. When it gets stronger they will come to the government side,� said Salam, once a friend of Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar. Under the Taliban, Salam served as provincial governor for Uruzgan in south Afghanistan, a Taliban stronghold and birthplace of Mullah Omar. Salam said he used to be very close to Omar but the two fell out about 10 years ago. He has not had contact with him since. “I was really close to him. We would meet just like we are here. He was my good friend,� Salam said. “Two years before the 2001 attacks ... I told Mullah Omar: ‘You are forcing the people to pray and this is not a good way to treat the people. Leave them to live their lives’.�
“But he didn’t listen and so after that I didn’t have any contact with him,� Salam said. Like many members of the Taliban, Salam is virtually illiterate having only been educated in a madrassa up to the age of 12. On a glass coffee table in front of him is a signature stamp, which many Taliban commanders often use because they are unable to sign their names.
But what he lacks in education he makes up for in character. Charismatic and larger than life, he is an excellent orator. He grins as he recounts his Taliban days and says he is not against them but does not agree with what they are doing. He said in an interview he is in contact with the Taliban all over Afghanistan and in Pakistan. Salam says he needs more funding to allow intelligence officers to go and talk to the insurgents and wants to set up more police checkpoints to spread governance to a wider area. “If they are not living in a secure area and they join the government, the other Taliban will kill them. I say to the Taliban: ‘Stop killing the people and do business and look after your families’,� Salam said. reuters
* Governor of Musa Qila says security concerns keeping most Taliban from defecting to government
MUSA QALA: As many as 95 percent of the Afghan Taliban are willing to lay down their arms but are afraid they will be killed for defecting because the government cannot ensure their safety, a former commander said on Sunday.
The new United States administration says the war cannot be won by military means alone and its strategy review announced on Friday refers to the need to bring some of the insurgents in from the cold. “Ninety-five percent of the Taliban want to reconcile with the government if they can be assured security,� Mullah Abdul Salam, a former high-ranking Taliban commander and now governor of Musa Qala in southern Helmand province, told Reuters.
“But the government of Afghanistan cannot ensure their safety. If they defect to the government, the other Taliban will kill them. They are fighting for their lives,� said Salam. The government must promise to keep safe those insurgents who make peace, Salam said, but most of them are hedging their bets until it is strong enough to do so. The Taliban “are just observing the security situation. At the moment the government is not much stronger than them. When it gets stronger they will come to the government side,� said Salam, once a friend of Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar. Under the Taliban, Salam served as provincial governor for Uruzgan in south Afghanistan, a Taliban stronghold and birthplace of Mullah Omar. Salam said he used to be very close to Omar but the two fell out about 10 years ago. He has not had contact with him since. “I was really close to him. We would meet just like we are here. He was my good friend,� Salam said. “Two years before the 2001 attacks ... I told Mullah Omar: ‘You are forcing the people to pray and this is not a good way to treat the people. Leave them to live their lives’.�
“But he didn’t listen and so after that I didn’t have any contact with him,� Salam said. Like many members of the Taliban, Salam is virtually illiterate having only been educated in a madrassa up to the age of 12. On a glass coffee table in front of him is a signature stamp, which many Taliban commanders often use because they are unable to sign their names.
But what he lacks in education he makes up for in character. Charismatic and larger than life, he is an excellent orator. He grins as he recounts his Taliban days and says he is not against them but does not agree with what they are doing. He said in an interview he is in contact with the Taliban all over Afghanistan and in Pakistan. Salam says he needs more funding to allow intelligence officers to go and talk to the insurgents and wants to set up more police checkpoints to spread governance to a wider area. “If they are not living in a secure area and they join the government, the other Taliban will kill them. I say to the Taliban: ‘Stop killing the people and do business and look after your families’,� Salam said. reuters
#123 Posted by _ar_jun87 on March 29, 2009 4:37:53 pm
daily times...
Editorial: President Obama’s Afghan war roadmap
US President Barack Obama announced his Afghan war strategy on Friday and said things that have both pleased and annoyed different factions of opinion in Pakistan and Afghanistan at the same time. His assertion that “Al Qaeda was a cancer inside Pakistan that was devouring it� doesn’t sit well with people who think Al Qaeda doesn’t exist and, if it does, it represents no danger to Pakistan. His reference to the “blank cheque� that is not to be given to Pakistan has convinced some that this is a tactic of pressure and a harbinger of a tough policy to come from Washington.
But the important fact is that President Asif Zardari has welcomed the new policy and stated that he was consulted on it beforehand. Clearly, it is that part of the package that mentions giving $1.5 billion annually to Pakistan for development in the civilian sector that has appealed to him most. The welcome expressed by Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani springs from a similar consideration. Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, tackling the difficult aspects of a “regional� approach to the Afghan war in China and Holland, has also expressed approval of the policy, although just a day earlier our Foreign Office was growling over the drone attacks and suggesting that it didn’t care too much about US economic assistance.
The opponents of the “new package�, tripled from what was received by General Pervez Musharraf after he signed on the dotted line after 9/11, complain about the violation of Pakistan’s “sovereignty� through drone attacks to which, significantly, Mr Obama has made no reference. As if receiving a “blank cheque� were a morally correct thing to do, they see in his words a threat of further US intrusion in Pakistan’s domestic affairs. Somehow, “sovereignty� seems to be making a comeback in all homespun nationalist criticism of the US but the same critics are silent over Pakistan’s large chunks of lost territory to non-US “foreigners and anti-state locals� in the tribal areas and in Swat.
What has most upset local critics of President Obama’s plan of action is his comment that “Al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the US from safe havens in Pakistan. To the terrorists who oppose us, my message is: we will defeat you. We will insist that action be taken, one way or another�, implying that the US intends to act on intelligence against terrorists if Pakistan does not. No reference has been made to the Taliban, perhaps keeping in view the strategic sensitivities of the Pakistan army which our civilian rulers in Pakistan do not fully accept as legitimate national interest.
But the biggest challenge confronting Pakistan in the days to come is actually a challenge to the way the Pakistan army thinks. And it is going to come from the “regional approach� supported by Foreign Minister Qureshi, perhaps on the assumption that Pakistan will have a veto on what the final regional solution to the Afghan crisis is going to be. President Obama says a new “contact group� will be set up which will include Iran in addition to India, China and Russia. All the four “neighbours� in this regional contact group have views that do not fully gibe with Pakistan’s military thinking about the post-conflict status quo in Afghanistan. China, Iran, India and Russia stand behind the Central Asian States that oppose any repetition or extension of the rule of Taliban.
The regional consensus will not be in favour of the dominance of Afghanistan by the Taliban. If Pakistan stands against it, it will be isolated and will not be able to pursue the sort of “military solution� it embraced under General Zia-ul Haq when the Soviet forces wanted to leave Afghanistan after agreeing to a pluralist interim government in Kabul. From 1996 onwards, Pakistan stood isolated in the world when it recognised the Taliban government of Mullah Umar together with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States while the world stood aside and abominated the savagery of the Taliban government. The invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 delivered the last international verdict: Pakistan must adjust to living without the doctrine of “strategic depth� in Afghanistan against India and settle instead for a “neutral Afghanistan� that is at peace with itself and with its neighbours, disallowing any of them from poking their noses into its affairs or using its space and territory to settle their scores against one another.
Once this adjustment is made, Pakistan will be in a better position to combat the scourge of terrorism inside its territory and help cobble a politically neutral Afghanistan with the regional powers and the US. Today, the ambiguity about the “good� Taliban and the “bad� Taliban is rendering Islamabad’s war against terrorism incoherent and self-defeating. The truth is that both kinds of Taliban owe allegiance to Al Qaeda and follow its policies after agreeing with its global aims. *
Editorial: President Obama’s Afghan war roadmap
US President Barack Obama announced his Afghan war strategy on Friday and said things that have both pleased and annoyed different factions of opinion in Pakistan and Afghanistan at the same time. His assertion that “Al Qaeda was a cancer inside Pakistan that was devouring it� doesn’t sit well with people who think Al Qaeda doesn’t exist and, if it does, it represents no danger to Pakistan. His reference to the “blank cheque� that is not to be given to Pakistan has convinced some that this is a tactic of pressure and a harbinger of a tough policy to come from Washington.
But the important fact is that President Asif Zardari has welcomed the new policy and stated that he was consulted on it beforehand. Clearly, it is that part of the package that mentions giving $1.5 billion annually to Pakistan for development in the civilian sector that has appealed to him most. The welcome expressed by Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani springs from a similar consideration. Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, tackling the difficult aspects of a “regional� approach to the Afghan war in China and Holland, has also expressed approval of the policy, although just a day earlier our Foreign Office was growling over the drone attacks and suggesting that it didn’t care too much about US economic assistance.
The opponents of the “new package�, tripled from what was received by General Pervez Musharraf after he signed on the dotted line after 9/11, complain about the violation of Pakistan’s “sovereignty� through drone attacks to which, significantly, Mr Obama has made no reference. As if receiving a “blank cheque� were a morally correct thing to do, they see in his words a threat of further US intrusion in Pakistan’s domestic affairs. Somehow, “sovereignty� seems to be making a comeback in all homespun nationalist criticism of the US but the same critics are silent over Pakistan’s large chunks of lost territory to non-US “foreigners and anti-state locals� in the tribal areas and in Swat.
What has most upset local critics of President Obama’s plan of action is his comment that “Al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the US from safe havens in Pakistan. To the terrorists who oppose us, my message is: we will defeat you. We will insist that action be taken, one way or another�, implying that the US intends to act on intelligence against terrorists if Pakistan does not. No reference has been made to the Taliban, perhaps keeping in view the strategic sensitivities of the Pakistan army which our civilian rulers in Pakistan do not fully accept as legitimate national interest.
But the biggest challenge confronting Pakistan in the days to come is actually a challenge to the way the Pakistan army thinks. And it is going to come from the “regional approach� supported by Foreign Minister Qureshi, perhaps on the assumption that Pakistan will have a veto on what the final regional solution to the Afghan crisis is going to be. President Obama says a new “contact group� will be set up which will include Iran in addition to India, China and Russia. All the four “neighbours� in this regional contact group have views that do not fully gibe with Pakistan’s military thinking about the post-conflict status quo in Afghanistan. China, Iran, India and Russia stand behind the Central Asian States that oppose any repetition or extension of the rule of Taliban.
The regional consensus will not be in favour of the dominance of Afghanistan by the Taliban. If Pakistan stands against it, it will be isolated and will not be able to pursue the sort of “military solution� it embraced under General Zia-ul Haq when the Soviet forces wanted to leave Afghanistan after agreeing to a pluralist interim government in Kabul. From 1996 onwards, Pakistan stood isolated in the world when it recognised the Taliban government of Mullah Umar together with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States while the world stood aside and abominated the savagery of the Taliban government. The invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 delivered the last international verdict: Pakistan must adjust to living without the doctrine of “strategic depth� in Afghanistan against India and settle instead for a “neutral Afghanistan� that is at peace with itself and with its neighbours, disallowing any of them from poking their noses into its affairs or using its space and territory to settle their scores against one another.
Once this adjustment is made, Pakistan will be in a better position to combat the scourge of terrorism inside its territory and help cobble a politically neutral Afghanistan with the regional powers and the US. Today, the ambiguity about the “good� Taliban and the “bad� Taliban is rendering Islamabad’s war against terrorism incoherent and self-defeating. The truth is that both kinds of Taliban owe allegiance to Al Qaeda and follow its policies after agreeing with its global aims. *
#122 Posted by _ar_jun87 on March 29, 2009 4:33:59 pm
#118 Posted by dost_mittar on March 29, 2009 1:58:41 pm
- No mention of ending terrorist training camps or dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan
really?
Pakistan must cut ties with Afghan extremists: Gates
WASHINGTON: US Defence Secretary Robert Gates urged Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency to cut contacts with extremists in Afghanistan who were “an existential threat� to Pakistan. The ISI has had links with extremists “for a long time, as a hedge against what might happen in Afghanistan if we were to walk away,� Gates said on “Fox News Sunday�. “What we need to do is try and help the Pakistanis understand these groups are now an existential threat to them and we will be there as a steadfast ally for Pakistan,� Gates said. “They can count on us and they don’t need that hedge.� agencies
- No mention of ending terrorist training camps or dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan
really?
Pakistan must cut ties with Afghan extremists: Gates
WASHINGTON: US Defence Secretary Robert Gates urged Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency to cut contacts with extremists in Afghanistan who were “an existential threat� to Pakistan. The ISI has had links with extremists “for a long time, as a hedge against what might happen in Afghanistan if we were to walk away,� Gates said on “Fox News Sunday�. “What we need to do is try and help the Pakistanis understand these groups are now an existential threat to them and we will be there as a steadfast ally for Pakistan,� Gates said. “They can count on us and they don’t need that hedge.� agencies
#121 Posted by _ar_jun87 on March 29, 2009 4:31:10 pm
#118 Posted by dost_mittar on March 29, 2009 1:58:41 pm
so now we're predicting reality on obama's rhetoric or the lack thereof..?
wake up and smell the coffee...the 17k first phase of increased deployment isn't so america can hand over afghanistan to pakiland..even if america does withdraw in the future without afghanistan being a jeffersonian democracy, you can bet that america is going to be there for a long time..and pakiland will be in a state of civil war for a long time..
instead increased aid tied to Pakistan being "sincere"
yeah...all the aid in the past 7 years has resulted in so much economic development and prosperity in pakiland...in fact, pakiland is now in such good shape that it might take over kashmir anytime...
of course, reality is that there will be increase in the level of the civil war that will result from the strings being pulled...the damage that will do will far outweigh the 1.5 billion $/yr in aid..
i'll let you in on another secret...american aid means a lot of expensive american consultants and american products that cost 10 times more than they would have if bought in pakiland...
can you think of 3 countries that has been salvaged by american aid in the past? no? neither can i...
so now we're predicting reality on obama's rhetoric or the lack thereof..?
wake up and smell the coffee...the 17k first phase of increased deployment isn't so america can hand over afghanistan to pakiland..even if america does withdraw in the future without afghanistan being a jeffersonian democracy, you can bet that america is going to be there for a long time..and pakiland will be in a state of civil war for a long time..
instead increased aid tied to Pakistan being "sincere"
yeah...all the aid in the past 7 years has resulted in so much economic development and prosperity in pakiland...in fact, pakiland is now in such good shape that it might take over kashmir anytime...
of course, reality is that there will be increase in the level of the civil war that will result from the strings being pulled...the damage that will do will far outweigh the 1.5 billion $/yr in aid..
i'll let you in on another secret...american aid means a lot of expensive american consultants and american products that cost 10 times more than they would have if bought in pakiland...
can you think of 3 countries that has been salvaged by american aid in the past? no? neither can i...
#120 Posted by VRV on March 29, 2009 4:30:45 pm
Dost,
I'd go with ur points and ur post/thread on UP where u mentioned that LeT and JeM can resume their activities in India (with or without ISI's involvement) as long as they're not killing Americans. Same goes with Afghanistan where Pakistani moles (Taliban) can rule, provided AQ leadership were eliminated.
Whatever Obama mentions as contingency plans (Face the Nation on CBS) are in the realm of speculation but what is spoken is clear that he has a mind of his own. Obama also has broken away from the Bush-era policy towards Pakistan by belittling the established wealth of evidence of Pakistan's direct involvement in the disturbances in Afghanistan.
May be it's back to square one.
I'd go with ur points and ur post/thread on UP where u mentioned that LeT and JeM can resume their activities in India (with or without ISI's involvement) as long as they're not killing Americans. Same goes with Afghanistan where Pakistani moles (Taliban) can rule, provided AQ leadership were eliminated.
Whatever Obama mentions as contingency plans (Face the Nation on CBS) are in the realm of speculation but what is spoken is clear that he has a mind of his own. Obama also has broken away from the Bush-era policy towards Pakistan by belittling the established wealth of evidence of Pakistan's direct involvement in the disturbances in Afghanistan.
May be it's back to square one.
#118 Posted by dost_mittar on March 29, 2009 1:58:41 pm
arjun:
Try to be objective: Here are the realities:
- Obama started out by sounding out as the uber-hawk on Pakistan (for that matter, talking like a hawk before the US-Israeli crowd).
Now, he talks of the "exit strategy"
No talk of restoring democracy in Afghanistan
-No talk of routing out the taleban
-No talk of punishing Pakistan; instead increased aid tied to Pakistan being "sincere". Pakistan claims it has always been sincere. It used to deny any links with the taleban; now some of them are bold enough to claim usefulness of their lines of communications with the taleban with whom a compromise would have to be struck sooner or later, according to them;
- No mention of ending terrorist training camps or dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan
Try to be objective: Here are the realities:
- Obama started out by sounding out as the uber-hawk on Pakistan (for that matter, talking like a hawk before the US-Israeli crowd).
Now, he talks of the "exit strategy"
No talk of restoring democracy in Afghanistan
-No talk of routing out the taleban
-No talk of punishing Pakistan; instead increased aid tied to Pakistan being "sincere". Pakistan claims it has always been sincere. It used to deny any links with the taleban; now some of them are bold enough to claim usefulness of their lines of communications with the taleban with whom a compromise would have to be struck sooner or later, according to them;
- No mention of ending terrorist training camps or dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan
#117 Posted by _ar_jun87 on March 29, 2009 1:49:26 pm
#115 Posted by dost_mittar on March 29, 2009 1:40:09 pm
that's your take on the "nuances"...a take completely divorced from reality...
we've been here before, remember? in the days after 9/11, capt clueless was telling us pakiland, with uncle sam's wind in her back, was going to sail to economic prosperity..all the while supporting the jihadis and getting india to cough up kashmir..
that's your take on the "nuances"...a take completely divorced from reality...
we've been here before, remember? in the days after 9/11, capt clueless was telling us pakiland, with uncle sam's wind in her back, was going to sail to economic prosperity..all the while supporting the jihadis and getting india to cough up kashmir..
#116 Posted by RiazHaq on March 29, 2009 1:48:02 pm
Re: # 82
Feroz Sahib,"Masadi Sahib has been using the same kind of language for the past 3 or so years he has joined this community."
Thank you for the background and your assessment of masadi.
We should respond by denying masadi(and others like him) on this forum what he craves most: our attention
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide
Feroz Sahib,"Masadi Sahib has been using the same kind of language for the past 3 or so years he has joined this community."
Thank you for the background and your assessment of masadi.
We should respond by denying masadi(and others like him) on this forum what he craves most: our attention
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide
#115 Posted by dost_mittar on March 29, 2009 1:40:09 pm
arjun$87:
"seriously...there are pakis who think they can get america to hand over afghanistan to it's taliban proxies AND get america to get india to hand over kashmir to the land of the pure?"
If you are following the changed nuances of the US utterances, the first is not a total impossibility but Barrack Hussein can't do the second even if he wants to.
"seriously...there are pakis who think they can get america to hand over afghanistan to it's taliban proxies AND get america to get india to hand over kashmir to the land of the pure?"
If you are following the changed nuances of the US utterances, the first is not a total impossibility but Barrack Hussein can't do the second even if he wants to.
#114 Posted by guru on March 29, 2009 1:22:48 pm
Why Baki ga.dus make such a big deal of fighting others war. they ave been doing this for last 100s of years. Didn't they fight wars for Arabia on Indian brothers?
Just a few century before you were converted like these folks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLCbTNmU2l8&feature=related
http://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr3IB6m9L6s&feature=related
Go to rajeev's presentation on civilizatonal conflict here
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=rajeev+malhotra&emb=0&aq=f#
religion (marxism & capitalism are also abrahmic ga.dugiri) is a devilish concept which caused only pain, exploitation and destruction of people, culture and environmental pollution. bakiland and its foreign policy is just a symptom of this Abrahmic disease.
Just a few century before you were converted like these folks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLCbTNmU2l8&feature=related
http://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr3IB6m9L6s&feature=related
Go to rajeev's presentation on civilizatonal conflict here
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=rajeev+malhotra&emb=0&aq=f#
religion (marxism & capitalism are also abrahmic ga.dugiri) is a devilish concept which caused only pain, exploitation and destruction of people, culture and environmental pollution. bakiland and its foreign policy is just a symptom of this Abrahmic disease.
#113 Posted by _ar_jun87 on March 29, 2009 1:07:39 pm
#105 Posted by Urstruly on March 29, 2009 10:13:28 am
5. ponies...
hey..might as well ask for one...or you'll have to share one with riaz haq...
5. ponies...
hey..might as well ask for one...or you'll have to share one with riaz haq...
#112 Posted by _ar_jun87 on March 29, 2009 1:01:14 pm
is this guy riaz haq for real? at least we know where osama bin urstruly is coming from..
dude..pakiland has no cards to play...none..which is why when the US government tells you to forget about a peace deal, you'll have no choice but to send allah's army to fight allah's real army..
seriously...there are pakis who think they can get america to hand over afghanistan to it's taliban proxies AND get america to get india to hand over kashmir to the land of the pure?
che dude? you're the one smoking pot and you're the sane one?
dude..pakiland has no cards to play...none..which is why when the US government tells you to forget about a peace deal, you'll have no choice but to send allah's army to fight allah's real army..
seriously...there are pakis who think they can get america to hand over afghanistan to it's taliban proxies AND get america to get india to hand over kashmir to the land of the pure?
che dude? you're the one smoking pot and you're the sane one?
#111 Posted by CheGuevara on March 29, 2009 11:04:56 am
Re: # 109
"It requires give and take. "
As Arjun would say Pak Government takes billions of dollars and gives whacked Paki's. This is the form of "diplomacy" thats been operational since 9/11...
"It requires give and take. "
As Arjun would say Pak Government takes billions of dollars and gives whacked Paki's. This is the form of "diplomacy" thats been operational since 9/11...
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- Ravi_Kopra: What choice? Can any Abdullah,... Crowning of a Crony
- Diesel: punjabi mole hi ex... NRO Is Just a
- HisExcellency: re: Agha Amin wrote: "NRO... NRO Is Just a
- Mr.India: Breaking News: Vajpayee,... The Jehadi Frankenstein
- Mr.India: Vajpayee, Advani pseudo-moderates, Liberhan... The Jehadi Frankenstein
- Diesel: so mulla omar was... Crowning of a Crony
- Diesel: the allegation by NAB... NRO Is Just a
- Diesel: the allegation by NAB... NRO Is Just a
