Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15298
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Karan M » 06 Jan 2018 05:14

If this GOI has any seriousness about national security whatsoever, the Quint editor and his staff who worked on this so called story, plus all those who broke the OSA should be prosecuted.

sunnyP wrote:
Two Ex-RAW Chiefs Did Not Want Kulbhushan Jadhav Recruited As Spy


https://www.thequint.com/news/politics/ ... ted-as-spy

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6330
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby disha » 06 Jan 2018 05:36

Currently Army is the PM of Bakistan, but Allah knows better.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62461
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Singha » 06 Jan 2018 06:12

Agree with karan

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22674
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby SSridhar » 06 Jan 2018 06:15

CRamS wrote:It will be great if in one of those choreographed playacting call state dept or white house press briefings, an Indian or some other reporter who understand the India TSP USA triangular dynamic and is objective, asks what if TSP were to keep India specific pigLeTs but takes action against Haqqanis. Will that be enough to resume TSP USA bonhomie? I know this question is rhetorical, but would be interesting to see how the well coached spokesmen/women respond.

CRS, I guess the US spokeswoman would say that the Coalition Support Fund is directly related to the Afghanistan issue and the NDAA, 2017 deals only with Haqqanis & Taliban. Legalistically, correct.

Deans
BRFite
Posts: 724
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Deans » 06 Jan 2018 09:57


shaun
BRFite
Posts: 926
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby shaun » 06 Jan 2018 10:44

. I think this sums up all "
Pakistan has essentially developed its bargaining power by threatening its own demise"

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9862
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby arun » 06 Jan 2018 12:33

Transcript of Media Availability by US Defense Secretary Mattis at the Pentagon dealing with the suspension of military aid with the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

The US is still pandering to the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan by peddling the line that the Islamic Republic is a victim of the Mohammadden Terrorism the Pakistani’s created and unleashed in order to intimidate neighbours likes.

Claims the US is not concerned about the Islamic Republic closing off US lines of communication into Afghanistan nor concerned of the Islamic Republic spending even more time in bed with the Peoples Republic of China.

Media Availability by Secretary Mattis at the Pentagon
Press Operations

Secretary of Defense James N. Mattis
Jan. 5, 2018

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE JAMES N. MATTIS: So let's go around and try and take as many different people's questions as possible.

Q: Can you give us here some yesterday, they hadn't announced the decision yet on the Pakistan aid. Now that that has been announced, you were in Pakistan last month, can you give us a sense of what it is you want to see Pakistan do that will, I guess, resolve this situation? And what do you think the impact of this is going to be?

SEC. MATTIS: The -- what we've been working on with Pakistan, with the South Asia Strategy remember, it was a strategy that started with regionalization. It didn't start with Afghanistan. It started in the South Asia region, and it's how do we work together to take out the terrorists.

I think many of you are aware that Pakistan has lost more troops total than all of NATO, coalition combined in the fight against them. But we've had disagreements strong disagreements on some issues, and we're working those. The specific individual things we're doing are best handled in private, to ensure that we can be most productive. And that's what we're working now.

Q: Are you concerned about the ground lines, the supply lines to U.S. troops and coalition troops in Afghanistan? How will that be mitigated?

SEC. MATTIS: No, I'm not concerned about them.

Q: But how -- but the U.S. and coalition have relied upon access through Pakistan to equip, train, feed the troops in Afghanistan. Now what?

SEC. MATTIS: Not to train. I'm not concerned, no.

Q: Have you gotten some reassurance from Pakistan that none of that will be affected?

SEC. MATTIS: Let's keep going. I did this the other day, where I started taking just a couple people's questions, others didn't get a chance. And I don't like doing that --

Q: -- just, actually, to follow on -- kind of a follow on the same thing --

SEC. MATTIS: Yes, sure.

Q: -- I mean, have you gotten any indications from Islamabad that -- the G-locks and the A-locks that are perhaps going to be shut off?

SEC. MATTIS: No.

(CROSSTALK)

Q: Do you believe that this move is one that is actually eventually going to benefit the U.S.? Or you -- do you have fears that we could end up being hurt by it?

SEC. MATTIS: Which move?

Q: The Pakistan move. The cutting off of the security aid. Is this something you were in favor of --

SEC. MATTIS: Well, I'm sure you --

(CROSSTALK)

SEC. MATTIS: -- yes, I see.

Q: -- case for why we -- why to do it?

SEC. MATTIS: Yes, okay. I mean, I got it. As you saw in the statement, there were there were words very specific words used that said, we're still hopeful. I don't have the statement in front of me, but we're still working with Pakistan, and we would restore the aid if we see decisive movements against the terrorists, who are as much of a threat against Pakistan as they are against us. If you look at the checkered history of what terrorists have done along that border region.

How about the strong, silent side over here?

Q: Sir, do you believe that the civilian government is capable of doing what you want it to do in counterterrorism in Pakistan?

SEC. MATTIS: I would say the Pakistan government is capable of doing what we're trying to do together, yes. Absolutely. ………………………………

Q: Is there any reaction from the, your Pakistani counterparts to the cutting off of aid?

SEC. MATTIS: I don't have any at this time, no. …………………………….

Q: -- South Asia Strategy, and then the recent change in stance with the Pakistan aid, how does this all fit together to help secure -- better secure Afghanistan?

SEC. MATTIS: Yes, how does the national defense strategy, or the South Asia --

Q: Well, how does the recent decision on the Pakistan aid fit with the national defense strategy, fit with the South Asia Strategy, as far as better securing Afghanistan?

SEC. MATTIS: Yes, I mean, there's a campaign plan now that starts regionally. So we started thinking about India and Pakistan and Afghanistan. We reinforced some of our forces there, because we found some forces didn't have the American advisers they needed, and the ones with advisers seemed to always win. The ones without them did not fare so well.

And then we're realigning the forces in country, and we are then going to really come on strong at the reconciliation effort because that's the way this is going to end.

So what we're doing with Pakistan and we've been engaged with Pakistan; secretary of state has flown there; I've flown there, as you know; the chairman has been there -- excuse me, General Votel has been there. And so this is the ongoing dialogue as we hammer this out. I mean, now that we've created the strategy, then you have to execute it. That takes time.

Q: But does the decision on the aid for Pakistan impact this strategy and how you had --

(CROSSTALK)

SEC. MATTIS: It's all integrated into the strategy. Yes.

Q: Cutting off aid was part of the strategy?

SEC. MATTIS: Everything we're doing is integrated into this strategy. Yes. ……………………….

Q: Mr. Secretary, can I go back to Pakistan? I believe you just said there was no reaction yet, but the foreign minister --

SEC. MATTIS: No reaction to what?

Q: -- to the Pakistan aid decision. But the foreign minister told the Wall Street Journal that he said this was basically, there is no longer an alliance. And I'm curious, what's your reaction to that?

SEC. MATTIS: Yes, I haven't read what he said yet. What I meant was, there had been no reaction about closing A-locks and G-locks -- I think is what I was referring to at that point. And, obviously, we'll continue talking with one another, as we are at all times. I think, yesterday, General Votel was on the phone with General Bajwa, the chief of army staff. And we'll continue to coordinate this.

It's going -- again, this is going to take time. It won't make your 24-hour news cycle or your -- whatever your close of business time is today. This is what happens. I mean, if we were holding this in 1942, you'd say, "Well, gosh, I mean you've been at war for, you know, at least 45 days, here, and, you know, nothing's happened, you know?"

It's going to take years for all of this to play out, because you can see the amount of disarray in the world right now, from Syria -- that's going to take time for the diplomats to patch up. The U.N. is working it in Geneva, as we speak. It's going to take time to for Iraq to recover from what happened to them. It's going to take time on the Afghan-Pakistan border. I mean, this is -- just takes time.

Q: Can I follow up on that?

STAFF: Sir, you have time for about three more questions.

Q: Just on the Pakistan -- in his statement, the Pakistani minister talked about all the things that they believe Pakistan has done, obviously, and things I'm sure they laid out for you when you talked to them.

Do you think there's a disconnect between what the U.S. is looking for from Pakistan, and what Pakistan is thinking they're doing? Is there either confusion or disconnect over what they think or don't think the U.S. is --

SEC. MATTIS: Well, I think --

Q: -- asking for?

SEC. MATTIS: -- it's natural that people looking at it from different perspectives would have a different appreciation to the situation. But, that said, we have been consistent for some time about certain terrorist groups that have had havens in Pakistan.

Now, people can look at the same data and they're not entitled to their own facts, obviously. I mean, I read in a news story, I think it was yesterday, day before, that the Taliban owns half of Afghanistan. I'm sure the Taliban would love to take credit for that, but they probably would be a little more realistic. They don't even own near half of Afghanistan.

So people have different perspectives, but when it comes down to certain things, I don't think there's any misunderstanding at all. That's when you come down to certain specific things that we're trying to work out between us. ……………………………

Q: Sir, just to go back to Pakistan --

SEC. MATTIS: Yes.

Q: -- do you worry that China will move in and take the place of U.S. in terms of military aid to Pakistan? We've already seen some signs. They have an old relationship. Are you worried about China moving into Pakistan?

SEC. MATTIS: No. ………………..


From the US Department of Defense website here:

Media Availability by Secretary Mattis at the Pentagon

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9862
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby arun » 06 Jan 2018 12:44

shaun wrote:
. I think this sums up all "
Pakistan has essentially developed its bargaining power by threatening its own demise"



Christine Fairs comment is a variation of what Stephen P Cohen aka “Uneven Cohen” in BRF Lingo (BRF Dictionary) said on page 270 of his book “The Idea of Pakistan”.

What Cohen said was:

Pakistan now negotiates with its allies and friends by pointing a gun to its own head.


See Google Books here:

Clicky

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9862
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby arun » 06 Jan 2018 12:53

New York Times editorial on the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Appropriately titled “Pakistan, the Endlessly Troublesome Ally” though editorial content is rather namby pamby.:

Pakistan, the Endlessly Troublesome Ally

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
JAN. 5, 2018

Pakistan has long posed a dilemma for the United States — should America provide it with aid and treat it as an ally because of its potential to help fight regional extremists, or should ties and funding be restricted, or even severed, because of its connections to those groups?

The Trump administration’s announcement on Thursday that it would freeze nearly all military aid to Pakistan, roughly $1.3 billion annually, is the latest of several times in the last 16 years that funding has been withheld or modified out of American frustration with Pakistan’s support for certain terrorist groups. But President Trump’s bombast and the precipitous way the decision seems to have been made have led to doubts that Mr. Trump has a serious plan for managing the ramifications of this move.

Almost every military flight into Afghanistan goes through Pakistani airspace. Most supplies travel along Pakistani roads and rails. Pakistan could shut down American access at any moment, and some Pakistani officials are threatening to do just that. Pakistan could also ally more closely with China, which is already investing in major new infrastructure projects and expanding its international leadership at America’s expense, and be more hard-line in its rivalry with India. Indeed, China could once again be the beneficiary of a Trump decision estranging the United States from longtime partners.

The president is good at venting grievances, as he demonstrated in his New Year’s Day tweet on the situation: “The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years,” he wrote, “and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!”
But while, to some extent, Mr. Trump has a real point, he has given no assurance that he would not make matters worse.

Americans last cut off assistance to Pakistan in the 1990s after Pakistan tested a nuclear weapon and underwent a military coup, creating distrust between the two countries that has never dissipated. But after Sept. 11, 2001, the relationship was transformed overnight. The United States demanded that Pakistan choose sides in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, as well as their extremist allies who sought safe haven along Pakistan’s lawless border. Pakistan acceded, and it was given major new aid in return.

Since then, Pakistan has played a double game, accepting American funding while backing militants who protect Pakistani interests in Afghanistan and Kashmir. In 2014, Pakistan’s army finally mounted a serious military campaign against the Pakistani Taliban, which threatens the Pakistani state, and suffered many casualties. But its security services continue to support the Haqqani network, a Taliban faction that has killed American forces in Afghanistan and is behind many of the large-scale attacks on Afghan cities.

There are other perfidies. Pakistan’s security services support the Lashkar-e-Taiba, an extremist group that targets India and Kashmir. They failed to uncover or apprehend Osama bin Laden, who was killed by American special forces in a stunning raid on a compound near Pakistan’s major military barracks in Abbottabad.

In November, a Pakistani court ordered the release of Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, founder of the Islamist militant group behind the deadly 2008 Mumbai attacks in India, 10 months after the government placed him under house arrest. And after Pakistani forces this fall freed a Canadian-American family captured by the Taliban-linked Haqqani network, the government refused the Americans access to one of the abductors.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s willingness to give refuge to the Haqqanis and their allies is a major reason the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, where Mr. Trump recently agreed to increase American troop levels, still drags on after 17 years. The Islamic State’s expansion in Afghanistan has complicated the battlefield even more.

Mr. Trump is not the first to call a spade a spade. In 2011, Adm. Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, told a Senate committee that the Haqqani network was a “veritable arm” of the Pakistani security service. “Extremist organizations serving as proxies of the government of Pakistan are attacking Afghan troops and civilians as well as U.S. soldiers,” he said.

But President Trump cannot afford to walk away from Pakistan, which has often provided vital intelligence and has the world’s fastest-growing nuclear arsenal. Whether Pakistan will cooperate after the aid freeze remains to be seen. Initially, some Pakistani officials reacted harshly to the announcement, which came as a surprise, but on Friday, a Foreign Ministry statement talked about the need for mutual respect and patience as the two countries address common threats.

Mr. Trump could marshal other diplomatic tools, to see if more constructive cooperation with Pakistan is possible. One idea would be to harness his new friendships with the leaders of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to shut down Haqqani and other Taliban fund-raising efforts in the Persian Gulf.

This would, of course, require quiet negotiations, not shouting.


From the New YorkTimes:

NYT

Baikul
BRFite
Posts: 1128
Joined: 20 Sep 2010 06:47

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Baikul » 06 Jan 2018 14:54

Someone should whisper in the Orangehead's ear that acting tough on Pakistan, perhaps even a raid or six, will make him immortal, besides going one up on his predecessor who got Bin Laden.

Karan M wrote:If this GOI has any seriousness about national security whatsoever, the Quint editor and his staff who worked on this so called story, plus all those who broke the OSA should be prosecuted.



From your link:
The Quint is Rechecking the Kulbhushan Jadhav Story.

(The story on Kulbhushan Jadhav has been retracted. The Quint is rechecking some of the information mentioned in the article.)

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22674
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby SSridhar » 06 Jan 2018 14:59

Pakistan doesn’t need US aid at the cost of national dignity: army - DT
Pakistan’s military said Friday the suspension of US assistance will undermine bilateral security cooperation and regional peace efforts but will not deter the Pakistan’s counterterrorism resolve.


Thee ISPR Chief says three things above and one can easily read between the obvious lines. Coming from the Pakistani military, these can be understood only in one way. Let's see.

  • undermine bilateral security cooperation - means Pakistan would stop any intelligence sharing, if there was anything at all in the first place.
  • regional peace efforts - could mean many things. One, encourage China to oust the US from Afghan peace talks, some of which is already happening. Two, whatever pressure that the US is putting on Pakistan to curb terrorism against Pakistan & India would be more actively resisted by Pakistan giving freer hand for the Hafiz Saeeds and Haqqanis. Three, Pakistan is threatening to pull out of whatever peace dialogue efforts with India that seem to be happening lately with US patronage.
  • not deter the Pakistan’s counterterrorism resolve - What counterterrorism by Pakistan, the sponsor of terrorism in the region and beyond? Humbug. This is actually a blackmail that Pakistan would unleash more terrorism in the region. That is a stark warning.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22674
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby SSridhar » 06 Jan 2018 15:24

DT editorial today has an interesting statement.
Just as we can perhaps only bank on not coming under possible IMA fire only as long as Gen Raheel is at the helm.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5176
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Peregrine » 06 Jan 2018 15:28

All options on the table to deal with Pakistan: White House

WASHINGTON: The US is keeping "all options" on the table to deal with Pakistan if it does not take decisive action against the Taliban and the Haqqani network and dismantle their safe havens, the White House warned today.

The warning came after the US suspended about $2 billion in security aid to Pakistan for failing to clamp down on terror groups.

The freezing of all security assistance to Pakistan comes after President Donald Trump in a New Year's Day tweet accused the country of giving nothing to the US but "lies and deceit" and providing "safe haven" to terrorists in return for $33 billion aid over the last 15 years.

"The US does have a range of tools that we're looking at beyond just the security assistance issue to deal with Pakistan and to try to convince it to crack down on the Taliban and Haqqani network," a senior Trump administration official told reporters.

"Certainly no one should doubt the US resolve to address this threat and all options I would say will be on the table," said the official on condition of anonymity.

While some policy makers have been asking the White House to revoke the non-NATO ally status of Pakistan and put pressure on the country through multilateral institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the United Nations, Pentagon generals have indicated unilateral actions.

However, the official refrained from divulging any of the options that the administration is considering against Pakistan.

"I'm not able to comment on specific steps at this time. But nobody should doubt our resolve in trying to address these threats. We're looking at all options. We hope that we can cooperate with Pakistan. But we do have options that we're considering," the official said.

The US wants action against the existing safe havens of the Taliban and the Haqqani network and demolish its ability to carry out strikes across the border in Afghanistan, the Official said and expressed hope that Pakistan would take actions that the US was seeking.

"....that will allow the relationship to return to a more positive trajectory," the official said.

In August, while unveiling his new South Asia strategy, Trump had accused Pakistan of giving "safe haven to agents of chaos, violence, and terror," and said the time had come "for Pakistan to demonstrate its commitment to civilisation, order, and to peace".

Trump's new policy, the official said, is driven by the his desire to have a successful strategy in Afghanistan.

"We firmly believes that for the future of the region, Pakistan needs to crack down on these terrorist elements. Unless they take a comprehensive approach to the terrorism problem it is going to threaten US interests and everybody's interests including Pakistan's," the official said.

He said the announcement of the suspension of the security assistance to Pakistan clearly reflected the US' frustration over
Pakistan's failure to crack down on all terrorists who find shelter on its territory.

"There has been ample time for Pakistan to show it is taking our request seriously. Unfortunately, we have not seen the kind of meaningful action that we were seeking," the White House official rued.

Responding to a question, the official said US has "a number of tools in its toolkit" and can "take unilateral" steps.

But at this time, the US prefers to cooperate with Pakistan and is hopeful about it, the official said.

"And we want to indicate Pakistan our seriousness about the issue of dealing with safe havens," the official said.

Meanwhile, Defence Secretary Jim Mattis said the US would restore the suspended security assistance to Pakistan if it takes action against terrorist groups.

"We would restore the aid if we see decisive movements against the terrorists, who are as much of a threat against Pakistan as they are against us," Mattis told reporters.

The US is still working with Pakistan, he said, but refrained from going into details.

"The specific individual things we're doing are best handled in private, to ensure that we can be most productive. And that's what we're working now," he said.

Mattis had travelled to Pakistan last month for talks with the top Pakistani leadership.

"There's a campaign plan now that starts regionally. So we started thinking about India and Pakistan and Afghanistan. We reinforced some of our forces there, because we found some forces didn't have the American advisers they needed, and the ones with advisers seemed to always win. The ones without them did not fare so well," he said.

Cheers Image

sunnyP
BRFite
Posts: 1274
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 16:52

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby sunnyP » 06 Jan 2018 15:55

Karan M wrote:If this GOI has any seriousness about national security whatsoever, the Quint editor and his staff who worked on this so called story, plus all those who broke the OSA should be prosecuted.




Looks like something did happen as the story has been pulled.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7236
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby anupmisra » 06 Jan 2018 19:05

arun wrote:Pakistan now negotiates with its allies and friends by pointing a gun to its own head.


Time for the world to realize that the gun is not loaded. Never was.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7236
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby anupmisra » 06 Jan 2018 21:07

Ingrates + Sialkoti Accounting = Pakiness!

Pakistan PM calls US aid 'insignificant' as Trump threatens to cut it off

US financial assistance was “very, very insignificant” and that Pakistan was “on the forefront of the war on terror”.
Abbasi said that reports that the US was considering cuts of up to $2bn in security assistance were bewildering because the total aid Pakistan – civilian and military – actually received was a tiny fraction of that amount.
“The aid in the last five years at least has been less than $10m a year :shock: . It is a very, very insignificant amount. So when I read in the paper that aid at the level of $250m or 500 or 900 has been cut, we at least are not aware of that aid.”
According to the US Agency for International Development, the US gave $778m to Pakistan in assistance in 2016, of which 35% was military and the rest economic.
Pakistani officials said that the amounts actually of aid money spent are much less that those quoted and they plan to publish their version soon.


Presto! Dossier time!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... nding-cuts

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6136
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby CRamS » 06 Jan 2018 21:11

Damage control by US seems to be in the works

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-difficul ... 11569.html


In the end, observers say, until Washington addresses Pakistan's fears over India, it will not shake its support for militant proxies.



So TSP's blood thirst through pigLeTs is all because of baad India. Any guesses on who these observers toadies are? My guess would be Uneven, Krapon, their Uncle Tom side kicks, assorted traitors in India, argumentative busy body SDREs on how US being tough on TSP will embolden "Hindu extremists", you name it.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1318
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Manish_P » 06 Jan 2018 21:15

Lol. Both the whore and the client do give me something to laugh about every week

Guess a nice part of the sanctioned 'aid' was diverted both at the US and the Paki ends. The senior afsaran of the pak fauj and the see eye aye would have helped themselves goodly :lol:

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7236
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby anupmisra » 06 Jan 2018 23:12

Are you all sitting down? Read on...a few new gems from the land of make believe!

Partition of provinces sparked 1947 riots, says historian :roll:

An expert on Pakistan’s history on Wednesday said it was not the partition of British India that sparked riots in the Subcontinent but the partition of provinces of Bengal and Punjab; and Jawaharlal Nehru, not Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnnah, was responsible for those tragic events.
No blood would have shed had that been allowed to happen
when Huseyn Shaheed Suharwardy and other leaders from Bengal came to the Quaid and said let India and not Bengal be divided, Mr Jinnah fully supported the idea, but Nehru opposed it.
He added that it was not the partition of British India that sparked riots, but the riots led to partition.
The founders of Pakistan were not in favour of Pakistan initially, but the discrimination towards Muslims led them to do so. We are Muslims not by definition, but by discrimination.
Mohammad Ali Jinnah founded Pakistan because of discrimination in united India. But, how liberal he actually was, is evident in his speech of Aug11, 1947 in which he said regardless of caste and creed everyone was an equal citizen of Pakistan (ah, that speech!)
He said all main stakeholders in the Subcontinent were on the same page for a united India with a loose centre and maximum autonomy to the provinces or states.
He added that the Quaid founded Pakistan because it was the most suitable proposition in the end. However, he said, before all that all other options were tried and tested.
Answering a question about the future of Pakistan, he said nations did not evolve in 70 years and there was no instant recipe to become a nation. 8)


So, the age old malsic strategy of "it's not us, it's you" worked. "We did not want to kill you and rape yoru women. You forced us to do that", strategy.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1380620/parti ... -historian

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5203
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Rakesh » 06 Jan 2018 23:33

Meet the Man Who Kidnapped Kulbhushan Jadhav From Iran at the Behest of Pak Army
https://in.news.yahoo.com/kulbhushan-ja ... 35245.html

According to sources in Indian security establishment, Kulbhushan Jadhav was kidnapped by Mullah Omar Irani of Jaish-ul-Adl from Sarbaz city, around 52km from Chabahar. Irani then handed over Jadhav to the Pakistan Army.

Image

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6827
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Mort Walker » 07 Jan 2018 00:09

IFF the US can cut IMF lending to Terroristan, then that will have a big blow. In December, the IMF forced pakis to devalue the Pak Rupee by over 5% to USD. The latest US cutting aid has also impacted the Pak Rupee further.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1007
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby nam » 07 Jan 2018 00:21

Sanctions on American kit used by the Pakistan. F16, m109, cobras, p3,c130 etc.

Until it happens it is all drama.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15298
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Karan M » 07 Jan 2018 00:23

Baikul wrote:Someone should whisper in the Orangehead's ear that acting tough on Pakistan, perhaps even a raid or six, will make him immortal, besides going one up on his predecessor who got Bin Laden.

Karan M wrote:If this GOI has any seriousness about national security whatsoever, the Quint editor and his staff who worked on this so called story, plus all those who broke the OSA should be prosecuted.



From your link:
The Quint is Rechecking the Kulbhushan Jadhav Story.

(The story on Kulbhushan Jadhav has been retracted. The Quint is rechecking some of the information mentioned in the article.)


retraction or not, GOI needs to take action. these people put a mans life at risk for their narrow sensationalist goals.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5176
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Peregrine » 07 Jan 2018 00:32

Pakistan blacklists Hafiz Saeed’s JuD, FIF amid US pressure

NEW DELHI: Amid growing pressure from Trump administration to crack down on terror outfits, Pakistan interior ministry on Saturday blacklisted 26/11 Mumbai terror attack mastermind Hafiz Saeed's organization Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) and several other terror organizations, reported Express News.

The move comes a day after the US suspended about $2 billion in security aid to Pakistan for failing to clamp down on the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani Network terror groups and dismantle their safe havens.

US President Donald Trump had on January 1 accused Pakistan of giving nothing to the US but "lies and deceit" and providing "safe haven" to terrorists in return for $33 billion aid over the last 15 years.

Rattled by US threat and under pressure to win back its trust, Pakistan interior ministry in a press release made public as many as 72 groups banned by it. The list also includes a subsidiary of JuD known as Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation. Please note the Sacred and Halal "Number" i.e. 72! :rotfl:

Pakistan has also blocked financial assistance of any sort to the blacklisted organizations. The press release stated that providing any kind of assistance to any of the blacklisted organisations, financially or otherwise, would be a punishable offence.

Earlier this month, Pakistan's financial regulatory body had banned Saeed's organizations from collecting donations.

In January last year, the Pakistan government had launched a crackdown against JuD, placing Saeed under house arrest.However, Lashkar-e-Taiba chief Saeed, was released in November 2017 after the Lahore high court refused to extend the period of his confinement.

Following his release, terrorist Saeed announced entry into politics and said that he will be contesting the 2018 general elections in Pakistan.

Cheers Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5176
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Peregrine » 07 Jan 2018 01:25

Pakistan remains terroristan despite US pressure - SD Pradhan

Notwithstanding the US pressure to take concrete steps to check terrorism emanating from Pakistan and its clear indication of its growing frustration with duplicity over fighting with terror networks, Pakistan has done nothing in that direction. US President Trump rightly said the US had foolishly given Pakistan more than $33bn (£24.4bn) in aid over the last 15 years, only to receive lies and deceit in return. This is the stark reality. US has withheld the financial assistance in view of this double game played by Pakistan. Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN, has said that the US administration would withhold $255m in aid to the country. “Pakistan has played a double game for years”, she told reporters, saying that it had pledged to help the US combat extremist groups while at the same time harbouring those same groups.

However, Pakistan has taken a few steps to inveigle the US to project its “sincerity”. The Pak financial authorities have announced a ban on the fund collection and donation Lashkar-e Toiba and its affiliates-an internationally proscribed organisation. Reports also indicate, which are aimed at projection of the Pak concrete steps against the terrorist outfits, that the Pak authorities might seize the charities and other financial assets linked to Hafiz Sayeed. This time there is also a pressure of Financial Action Task Force on Pakistan to meet the requirements if it desires to do business with the International Community. Hence there is a greater propaganda of its false intents.

One thing must be noted that this is not the first time that such an announcement has been made. Pak authorities in the past also declared such steps whenever there was US pressure to ward off pressure and ensure continuance of financial aid. This tactics must be kept in the sharp focus to understand Pak game plan.

On the ground there has been no change in the Pak policy to support terrorist outfits. This is because of the fact that Pakistan considers that this policy would keep Afghanistan in a state of turmoil which would achieve twin objectives- US would continue to dole out assistance and India would not be able to have influence in that country. The Pak Army has not been able to shake off its concept of strategic depth to be provided by Afghanistan against India. In addition, the terrorist outfits allow Pakistan to continue to use them to bleed India through the thousand cuts-policy that has remained unchanged over the years. The intelligence reports clearly reveal the continued terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan where a number of terrorists are receiving advanced training. The recent bold attacks in J&K confirm this.

Whether there would be any reduction of aid from US or not is yet to be seen. In the past too there had been several such statements made by US but ultimately the US aid was not stopped. Even after Osama bin Laden was found to be enjoying shelter in Pak Army’s area, no reduction in aid was considered. However President Trump has made very clear and more forceful statements suggesting that the US administration is serious about taking action if it does not see Pakistan doing enough to give it satisfaction.

Pakistan appears to be not much worried about losing financial aid from US now. China, which has converted the country into its vassal state, is prepared to provide more assistance to ensure that its China Pak Economic Corridor remains undisturbed and gets extended to Afghanistan. China defended Pakistan, saying the world community should acknowledge its all-weather ally’s “outstanding contribution” to counter terrorism, a day after United States President Donald Trump lashed out at Islamabad for providing “safe havens” to terrorists. “Pakistan has made enormous efforts and sacrifice for the fight against terrorism,” says Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang. It is certainly a ridiculous statement but China can make such statements. China after building artificial islands in South China Sea had brazenly denied it. China is using Pakistan to extend its CPEC to Afghanistan. During the first ever trilateral meeting of the foreign ministers of China, Pakistan and Afghanistan in Beijing last week of Dec 2017, Beijing announced plans to extend the CPEC to Afghanistan.

A few statements coming from Pakistan have enthused those who wish to see India engages Pakistan for the normalisation of relations between the two countries. The Pak Army Chief Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa at a security briefing to Senate stated that the Pak Army was ready to back the political leadership’s initiatives for normalisation of relations between India and Pakistan. While he was only trying to project that the Pak Army does not oppose the normalisation of relationship with India, an analysis would suggest that the Pak Army was stating that it remains the decision maker as far foreign and security policy of Pakistan is concerned. While Pak Army Chief was saying this he was also providing legitimacy to Hafiz Sayeed. He is freely allowed to move and contact all. When asked about this freedom to internationally designated terrorist, Gen. Bajwa unabashedly said that Hafiz was actively trying to resolve the Kashmir issue. Openly supporting a terrorist who is advocating hatred and violence and was mastermind for the 26/11 Mumbai attacks reflects that the Pak Army is totally following the terrorist policies. The Indian strategists need to keep in view that the terrorists are nothing but an unofficial army of Pakistan while planning to deal with Pakistan and to counter Pak Army’s nefarious designs. In essence, India needs to build greater pressure in areas which can place the Pak Army under severe pressure. As a first step the moral, political and diplomatic support to those who are fighting for their rights in Balochistan and Gilgit-Baltistan should be extended.

Cheers Image

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6330
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby disha » 07 Jan 2018 01:56

nam wrote:Sanctions on American kit used by the Pakistan. F16, m109, cobras, p3,c130 etc.

Until it happens it is all drama.


That is why Hafiz Suar should be elected as PM of Bakistan. It will be great to see the Hafiz Suar address UN. And also meet the PMs and Kings & Queens of Europe. The president of Turkey and declare his support for the global ummah.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5176
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Peregrine » 07 Jan 2018 03:36

Fully Posted on the PESW Thread

‘Pakistan will be no way near $35b export target in June 2018’
KARACHI: Pakistan is all set to miss its over-ambitious export target of $35 billion by June 2018, which the federal government set in the three-year Strategic Trade Policy Framework 2016-18, say high-ranked officials.
After failing to meet the goal in three years, the government will try to achieve the target in the new trade policy but this time the timeframe will be for five years from 2019 to 2023.
“We can push exports above $36 billion in the next five years,” declared Ministry of Commerce Director General Trade Policy Nauman Aslam.
Cheers Image

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49810
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby ramana » 07 Jan 2018 04:40

shaun wrote:
. I think this sums up all "
Pakistan has essentially developed its bargaining power by threatening its own demise"


Blazing saddles theme.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9862
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby arun » 07 Jan 2018 08:18

^^^





Longer version:


arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9862
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby arun » 07 Jan 2018 09:44

In Huffigton Post an article titled “Test of Bills or a Test of Wills: Opportunity and Perils in Suspending Security Assistance to Pakistan", by C Christine Fair, Associate Professor at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service.

Options she suggest the US should undertake to bring the Mohammadden Terrorist Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan to heel are:

1. Immediately remove Pakistan’s status as a Major Non-NATO Ally

2. Announce US intent to designate specific persons in the Pakistan army or other services, intelligence agencies or civilian government if it has credible intelligence or evidence that they are directly assisting groups that are proscribed by the US State Department and/or Treasury.

3. Signal US intent to designate Pakistan as state sponsor of terror for which there is ample evidence already.

Funnily Christine Fair makes no mention of the embargoing of all military equipment and spare part supplies, including via countries like Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE which use US equipment, an act that will get the immediate attention of the only power that matters in the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan, namely the Uniformed Jihadi’s of the Punjabi Military Dominated Deep State :-o .


Christine Fair concludes by {indirectly?} suggesting her country's President ie: US President Donald Trump may be "mentally ill and/or incompetent" by saying :roll: . It augurs badly for the US that US nationals suggest, however elliptically, this kind of stuff even when dealing with subjects important to the US national interest. Seems our Academics even from the deepest depths of JNU's leftist political swamps are a more sensible lot :eek: :


One of the positive externalities of having a president that has been widely assessed to be mentally ill and/or incompetent is that it gives the United States a genuine and credible threat to act against Pakistan. …………………..

While it pains me to say it so plainly: the qualified people on his staff should understand the value of Trump’s madness and leverage it fully in its efforts to reshape Pakistani behavior or, at least, stop footing the bill for Pakistan’s perfidy.



From Huffington Post:

Test of Bills or a Test of Wills: Opportunity and Perils in Suspending Security Assistance to Pakistan

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1007
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby nam » 07 Jan 2018 15:50

ramana wrote:
shaun wrote:. I think this sums up all "
Pakistan has essentially developed its bargaining power by threatening its own demise"


Blazing saddles theme.

It works because US buys the theory. The US wants Pak to behave like this so that there is an excuse for all the dole.

Nobody asked the Americans to be stupid. They did it by their choice.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5176
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Peregrine » 07 Jan 2018 16:53

Toxic marriage

Pakistan and the US have been in a 70-year relationship. It has been a toxic marriage, and toxic love; but also a mutually dependent relationship. The US has been dependent on Pakistan for its own strategic objectives while Pakistan’s dependence on the US has been more economic in nature. It has surely been an extremely troublesome marriage – but without a divorce.

As of November 28, 2017, direct overt US appropriations for and military reimbursements to Pakistan have amounted to $33.927 billion (FY 2002-2018). Of this, the security-related amount is $8.259 billion, economic related $11.095 billion and Coalition Support Fund (CSF) reimbursements are $14.573 billion. For the record, CSF payments are, “reimbursements to Pakistan for expenses already incurred and compensation for facilities made available to the coalition forces….” In effect, 75 percent of all direct overt US appropriations have gone towards the CSF and security related reimbursements (the remaining 25 percent being economic related).

The US has so far spent $714 billion in Afghanistan, according to the special inspector general for Afghanistan Reconstruction, making this war the “longest and one of the costliest military operations in United States’ history.” The most recent estimate from the Long War Journal (LWJ) is that the, “Taliban currently control 41 districts and contest an additional 118.” The LWJ has, “determined that 45 percent of Afghanistan’s districts are controlled or contested by the Taliban.”

In Pakistan, Operation Rah-e-Nijat established the government’s writ over 6,619 square kms of South Waziristan. Operation Zarb-e-Azb established the government’s writ over 4,707 square kms of North Waziristan. Operation Black Thunderstorm established the government’s writ over Buner, Lower Dir, Swat and Shangla.

Our narrative is that there isn’t an inch of Pakistani territory that is not within the government’s writ. Our narrative is that there is no organised militant infrastructure on Pakistani territory. But we, as a country, have miserably failed to sell our narrative.

Red alert : There’s an international conspiracy to create chaos, instability and mayhem in Pakistan. I am convinced that we are militarily quite secure. Our vulnerability really lies in the economic domain. In the next 12 months, Pakistan has to pay back at least $6 billion to foreign creditors. Between January and June, Pakistan’s current account deficit is expected to be around $8 billion. As of December 22, 2017, net dollar reserves with the SBP were $14.1 billion. Please do the simple math and in about six months the SBP will be left with very little. That’s scary to say the least.

Imagine, our trade deficit is going to be $35 billion. Imagine, our budget deficit is going to be Rs2.2 trillion. Yes, Trump knows that. I hear analysts talk about an Islamabad-Beijing-Moscow nexus. Will the nexus fill our trade deficit? Have they ever done it in the past? What will they ask for in return?

Imagine, the US has 831,407 votes at the IMF. Yes, Trump knows that. The US has 385,197 votes at the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Yes, Trump knows that. I hear that the SBP has made arrangements for using the yuan for bilateral trade. Will the issuers of the yuan fill our budget deficit? Have they ever done it in the past? What will they ask for in return?

On December 18, 2017, Trump presented his first National Security Strategy (NSS). The NSS is China-centric and considers China a ‘revisionist’ power. I think that Trump’s latest Twitter outburst is more about Pakistan-China than about Pakistan-Afghanistan. Our 70-year old addiction to toxic love will die hard. Pakistan must, therefore, tread carefully because ‘when elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers’.

Cheers Image

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9862
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby arun » 07 Jan 2018 18:07

X Posted from the Indian Foreign Policy thread.

A Maulana by name of Tahir Ashrafi who is identified as the Chairman of the Mohammadden Group the Pakistan Ulema Council (PUC), says Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has reinstated Palestines so called “Ambassador” to the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan,one Walid Abu Ali. Said Walid Abu Ali was reportedly recalled after India protested for his sharing dais with UN Designated Terrorist and 26/11 Mumbai Mohammadden Terrorist attack, Hafiz Mohammad Saeed.

Given that citizens of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic. are inveterate liars but bowing to the need of sensible caution when dealing with the Mohammadden doctrine of Taqiyyah which has also infected Palestine, I wait for confirmation from other sources :

Palestine reinstates ambassador to Pakistan: Tahir Ashrafi

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9862
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby arun » 07 Jan 2018 18:16

Per ANI, citing Palestine “Foreign Ministry” this is not a demonstration of Taqiyyah by Palestine but a case of a citizen of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan being the inveterate liars they are:

Palestine denies report that envoy who shared stage with Hafiz Saeed was reinstated

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5176
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Peregrine » 07 Jan 2018 18:38

Pentagon still in touch with Pakistani military: Mattis

WASHINGTON: US Defence Secretary James Mattis on Friday said that the Pentagon was maintaining its communication with the Pakistani military establishment, including with Army Chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa, even after suspending its security assistance to Pakistan.

“I think, yesterday Gen Joseph Votel was on the phone with Gen Bajwa, the chief of the army staff. And we’ll continue to coordinate this,” he said at an afternoon news briefing at the Pentagon.

“Obviously, we’ll continue talking with one another, as we are at all times,” said the US defence chief, but he did not clarify if the conversation took place before or after Washington announced the aid suspension on Thursday.

As commander of the US Central Command, Gen Votel is directly responsible for US war efforts in Afghanistan where Washington still maintains about 14,000 troops and other military assets.

Mr Mattis said the Trump administration considered all possibilities before suspending its military assistance to Pakistan and was not worried about Islamabad shutting off supplies to Afghanistan in retaliation.

“I’m not concerned, no,” he said when asked if the suspension could lead Pakistan to cut off supply lines, adding that he had not received any indication from Islamabad that it might block supply lines.

Mr Mattis said “no” again when asked if he was worried that China would move in to fill the gap created by the absence of US military aid to Pakistan.

Also on Friday, a senior Trump administration official told journalists in Washington that the suspension would cost Pakistan an estimated $2 billion in military funding and equipment during the current and next fiscal years.

Unlike Mr Mattis, the official acknowledged that Islamabad could cut off supply routes to Afghanistan but insisted that “unless we deal with the Pakistan sanctuary issue, it will undermine all of our other efforts in Afghanistan”.

At a third briefing, two US State Department officials said the suspension could affect Foreign Military Financing carried forward from 2016 as well as previous funds not yet been spent or delivered.

US media reports indicated that the suspension could also jeopardise almost $1bn of US military equipment, some of which are already in the pipeline.

But analysts, who spoke to various media outlets, said it’s highly unlikely that the US will freeze all its supplies to Pakistan.

At the State Department briefing, officials indicated that Washington could make “exemptions” for programmes deemed vital to US national security.

At the Pentagon, Secretary Mattis acknowledged Pakistan’s sacrifices in the war against terrorism but said the aid suspension was part of the new US strategy for South Asia.

“Pakistan has lost more troops total than all of NATO, coalition combined in the fight against them. But we’ve had disagreements strong disagreements on some issues, and we’re working those,” he said.

Asked if he believed the civilian government was capable of assisting US counterterrorism efforts in the region, Mr Mattis said: “I would say the Pakistan government is capable of doing what we’re trying to do together, yes. Absolutely.”

Bill to end aid proposed

Meanwhile on Saturday, President Donald Trump posted another tweet on Pakistan, backing a Republican Senator’s plan to fund infrastructure projects with suspended aid to Pakistan.

“Good Idea Rand!” in response to a tweet from Senator Rand Paul about ending aid to Pakistan.

Senator Paul said in his tweet, “I’m introducing a bill to end aid to Pakistan in the coming days. My bill will take the money that would have gone to Pakistan and put it in an infrastructure fund to build roads and bridges here at home.”

“We’ve sent Pakistan $33 billion since 2002. What did we get for it? Well Pakistan didn’t even help us find Bin Laden, even though he was living in one of their cities for years,” he said in a video statement on Twitter.

Mr Paul, who said he has been fighting to end aid to Pakistan for years, called President Trump’s recent proposal to suspend aid “a breakthrough”.

Cheers Image

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16973
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby chetak » 07 Jan 2018 19:39

Karan M wrote:If this GOI has any seriousness about national security whatsoever, the Quint editor and his staff who worked on this so called story, plus all those who broke the OSA should be prosecuted.



always quote such gaddar articles in full, please.

looks like the traitors have withdrawn the article.

Someone has taken the trouble, the payment and opportunity to do a bigtime hitjob.


chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16973
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby chetak » 07 Jan 2018 20:48



isn't it good when the guru gets a rise out of her aged pupil?? :wink:

It only proves that im the dim was paying attention in class, no??

Imran has been visiting her for spiritual guidance for quite some time, so what kind of tipple did she serve??

im looks like the single malt type.

maybe a mellow lahori laphroaig aged in goat skin??

jrjrao
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 01 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby jrjrao » 07 Jan 2018 20:55

If President Trump and team really want to confirm what the NaPaki Terroristani Army thinks about this administration and the US in general, here is a good read:
(America is)...suffering a shameful defeat at the hands of Taliban, whom they shamelessly call terrorists.

...Taliban are not terrorists. They are freedom fighters, who have made unprecedented sacrifices to defeat the mightiest of the mighty of the world during the last thirty seven years. They stand tall and confident and cannot be defeated...

Allah be praised.

— The writer, a retired 4-star General, is former COAS, Pakistan Army.

https://pakobserver.net/pak-us-relations-tipping-point/

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5176
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Terroristan - 4th Jan 2018

Postby Peregrine » 07 Jan 2018 21:43

chetak wrote:isn't it good when the guru gets a rise out of her aged pupil?? :wink:

It only proves that im the dim was paying attention in class, no??

Imran has been visiting her for spiritual guidance for quite some time, so what kind of tipple did she serve??

im looks like the single malt type.

maybe a mellow lahori laphroaig aged in goat skin??
chetak Ji :

You have insulted my Wee Dram of the Drop from the Ol' Crater situated at Loch Laphroaig in the Isle of Islay.

Repent or you will face the wrath of Laphroag :twisted:

Cheers Image


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArjunPandit, pravula, wadi1979 and 18 guests