Terroristan - 29 September 2017

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3269
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby suryag » 03 Jan 2018 13:27

Monetary Takeover? Pakistan Allows Government And Private Bodies To Transact Using Chinese Yuan
Pakistan's central bank, State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) today (2 December) announced that both public and private sector enterprises of both countries could use the Chinese Yuan (CNY) for bilateral trade and investment.

Under existing foreign exchange regulations, the Yuan has approval for denominating foreign currency transactions in Pakistan. The SBP says that it has already put in place the required regulatory framework to facilitate the use of the Yuan in trade and investment transactions. The Yuan in Pakistan is considered to be at par with other international currencies such as the United States Dollar, the Euro and the Japanese Yen among others.

After signing a foreign currency swap Agreement (CSA) with its Chinese counterpart, the People’s Bank of China (PBC), the SBP took several measures to promote the use of the Yuan in Pakistan for trade and investment with China. In 2012, banks were allowed to accept deposits and give loans in the Yuan. In 2013, it had set up a system to enable banks to make use of the CSA so that banks could get Yuan from the SBP.

The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China's (ICBC) Pakistan branch has been permitted to establish a setup in Pakistan so that it can open Yuan accounts for locally-operated banks and to enable the settlement of Yuan-based transactions with China.


Chalo Quaid is replaced by Chairman Mao, kya din dekhne padh rahe hain Paakiyon ko. One silver lining is that they can now print FICN in their currencies full time

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23281
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby SSridhar » 03 Jan 2018 14:18

suryag wrote: One silver lining is that they can now print FICN in their currencies full time

You mean, FCCN?

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3269
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby suryag » 03 Jan 2018 14:47

yes sir

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10254
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby Aditya_V » 03 Jan 2018 15:18

SSridhar wrote:
suryag wrote: One silver lining is that they can now print FICN in their currencies full time

You mean, FCCN?


If someone in the Chinese Government works with them like someone in 2005 in the Indian Government worked with them to give them intact plates to create identical Notes.

http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/sep/08/how-isi-masterminds-fake-currency-racket.htm

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6531
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby Peregrine » 03 Jan 2018 17:15

Someone, somewhere may be is Fishing in Troubled Waters!

US to announce 'actions on Pakistan within hours'

WASHINGTON/ISLAMABAD: The United States accused Pakistan on Tuesday of playing a “double game” on fighting terrorism and warned Islamabad it would have to do more if it wanted to maintain U.S. aid.

“They can do more to stop terrorism and we want them to do that,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters.

The White House said it would likely announce actions to pressure Pakistan in the next 24 to 48 hours, shortly after U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley said at the United Nations that Washington would withhold $255 million in assistance to Pakistan.

”There are clear reasons for this. Pakistan has played a double game for years,“ Haley told reporters. ”They work with us at times, and they also harbor the terrorists that attack our troops in Afghanistan.

“That game is not acceptable to this administration. We expect far more cooperation from Pakistan in the fight against terrorism.”

The comments followed an angry tweet from President Donald Trump on Monday that the United States had been rewarded with “nothing but lies and deceit” for “foolishly” giving Pakistan more than $33 billion in aid in the past 15 years.

“They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!” he tweeted.

Pakistan civilian and military chiefs on Tuesday rejected “incomprehensible” U.S. comments and summoned American Ambassador David Hale to explain Trump’s tweet.

Pakistani U.N. Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi said in a statement that her country’s fight against terrorism was not based on any consideration of aid but on national interests and principles.

“We have contributed and sacrificed the most in fighting international terrorism and carried out the largest counter terrorism operation anywhere in the world,” Lodhi said. “We can review our cooperation if it is not appreciated.”

The United States alleges that senior Afghan Taliban commanders live on Pakistani soil, and has signaled it will cut aid and take other steps if Islamabad does not stop helping or turning a blind eye to Haqqani militants crossing the border to carry out attacks in Afghanistan.

STATE DEPT: PAKISTAN NEEDS TO EARN AID

At the State Department on Tuesday, spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Pakistan knew what it needed to do, including taking action against the Haqqani network and other militants.

Pakistan needs to “earn, essentially, the money that we have provided in the past in foreign military assistance,” she said.

Islamabad bristles at the suggestion it is not doing enough to fight militants, noting that its casualties at the hands of Islamists since 2001 number in the tens of thousands.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi on Tuesday chaired a National Security Committee meeting of civilian and military chiefs, focusing on Trump’s tweet. The meeting, which lasted nearly three hours, was brought forward by a day and followed an earlier meeting of army generals.

The committee, in a statement issued by the prime minister’s office, did not name Trump but spoke of “deep disappointment” at a slew of critical comments from U.S. officials over the past few months.

“Recent statements and articulation by the American leadership were completely incomprehensible as they contradicted facts manifestly, struck with great insensitivity at the trust between two nations built over generations, and negated the decades of sacrifices made by the Pakistani nation,” it said.

Cheers Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6531
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby Peregrine » 03 Jan 2018 17:31

X Posted on the Analyzing CPEC Thread
Lobbying firm hired to target CPEC in European Parliament
LONDON: A group called Baloch Voice Association (BVA) has hired an influential lobbying firm to arrange a conference on Balochistan in the European Parliament against the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) but the lobbying firm has not disclosed the amount paid to it in the European Union’s Transparency Register.
Cheers Image

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5028
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby SBajwa » 03 Jan 2018 18:10

Good Job. We love Baluchi people.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10794
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby pankajs » 03 Jan 2018 19:17

Are India-Pakistan Peace Talks Worth a Damn? [@Carnegie & Seems based on Ashley Tellis's paper; BAD audio]


SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23281
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby SSridhar » 03 Jan 2018 20:25

pankajs, thanks for posting that and then moving it here.

Here is a synopsis of all that Ashley Tellis said. I have some observations which I would post later on.

I was disappointed with Raja Mohan, who, in the nature of all Track-II Indian particiapants, suggested that India, as a larger country should do much more.

1. The paper questions the proposition whether dialogue can provide an exit (or bring closure) in the face of deep antagonisms.

2. The conclusion that the paper comes to is that dialogue cannot offer that exit in the absence of fundamental changes in the national positions held by both the parties today.

3. The national positions held by both countries are deeply influenced by the strategic circumstances

4. India has terrific strategic advantages and hence is not compelled to change its national position.

5. Pakistan has deep grievances but is unable to translate those into a favourable outcome.

6. This combination of irresistible force and immovable object makes dialogue unsuccessful.

7. The enduring hostility is not based on a single issue of contestaion. It spans multiple dimensions such as ideological, territorial and political, though the genesis is based simply on a ‘competing notion of nationhood’.

8. The internal convulsions in the state of J&K amplify the situation which otherwise could relegate the conflict to the background as it happened between 1971 & 1987.

9. The changing power-balance makes the resolution harder.

10. The dispute is between unequal and oddly-positioned states. Normally, such disputes should become notional when the bigger-state is status-quoist because in practical terms of realpolitik, there can be no dispute. But, in the case of India & Pakistan, that is not the case.

11. One reason is that during the Cold War, there was an asymmetry that the smaller state over performed while the bigger state continually underperformed. The power balance was therefore not in favour of India though a simple comparison of nominal GDP would tell a different story. Therefore, Pakistan was able to levy challenges to India throughout the Cold War. Pakistan was enabled to punch above its weight more than even what the Pakistanis themselves believed in.

12. India is becoming a bigger economic power; enjoys a greater global recognition now.

13. India is over performing enough to unnerve Pakistan but not enough to compel its acquiescence. Thus, Pakistan has moved towards solution that does not offer an antidote easily, namely jihadi terrorism under the shadow of nuclear weapons.

14. The n-weapons in Pakistani hands is not used by it as a deterrent but a licence to allow Pakistan to conduct a low-intensity warfare against India that allows it to do three things simultaneously: to reinforce territorial claims over J&K with greater impunity, it reinforces claims to equality with India, undermine India’s rise through jihadi terrorism that in turn protects Pakistan. The last is a Pakistani belief because India cannot be undermined by jihadi terrorism. However, a country bereft of choices would assume so. Added to this is the Pakistani Army’s desire for revenge for reverses suffered at Indian hands since 1971.

15. The efforts to use jihadi terrorism under n-weapons as a policy to bargain with India has now reached its limits for two reasons. One, after 9/11, terrorism as an instrument of political change has been delegitimized. Two, India has developed capacity to resist Pakistani terrorism without fundamentally altering its position on any disputes with Pakistan. The second factor would become more compelling for Pakistan in the future. That is because the core difference in capabilities between the two countries is so overwhelming in favour of India that terrorism may irritate or infuriate India but not bring it down to its knees. India has suffered, because of Pakistani terrorism, a hit of 1 to 2% in its economic growth but Indian planners had felt it was a sustainable trade-off to hold on to India’s geopolitical interests.

16. This leads to an ‘enduring stalemate’. This comes from the situation that the interminable pain inflicted by Pakistan cannot compel India to change.

17. There is a fundamental divergence of interests that cannot be altered by dialogue. Even if the Pakistani Army becomes ‘normal’, the deep-rooted Pakistani grievances of ideology, territory and political power would prevent a break-out in the situation through a mere dialogue.

18. There are therefore two ways to normalize the relationship.

19. One, if both sides agree to normalization. But, the catch is that each wants such a normalization on its own terms. India wants a ratification frm Pakistan of all the current ground realities. But, Pakistan wants a normalization that is contingent upon a revision of the [existing] political order.

20. It is therefore extremely hard to break-out of this conundrum that both countries find themselves in today. Optimistically, there is no way out.

21. So, the bottom-line is that India is a big status-quo power that can hang on to its status quo indefinitely and it is extremely unlikely that any external pressure on India to change would happen.

22. On the other hand, Pakistan as a weaker power has just two options: nuclear terrorism or appeal for dialogue. However, Pakistan’s nuclear terrorism holds no water because international community would intervene if it crosses a threshold. But, the samee international community is unwilling to get involved in resolving the dispute as Pakistan demands.

23. India is never going to concede to Pakistani terms even if a dialogue happens. So, dialogue could at best be a cover for Pakistan to come to inescapable realities. India may modulate its interests or otherwise in a dialogue depending upon exigencies but it is not going to do anything that will undercut its core interests.

24. Is there an exit?

25. There are four possibilities.

26. One, Pakistan accepts current geopolitical realities, seeks peace. This is the Musharraf option.

27. Two, India gives in to Pakistan. Not realistic.

28. Three, India resolves its internal grievances with the Kashmiris and others and makes Pakistan irrelevant.

29. Four, Pakistan continues as it is needling India in the hope that some external intervention might come about.

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3810
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby sanjaykumar » 04 Jan 2018 00:01

Left out is Pakistan’s employ of external patron states. Now China more so, after having benefited by $33 billion from the US since 2001.

So while Indians work hard, Pakistanis are having a blast.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 51311
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby ramana » 04 Jan 2018 00:23

Yes Ashley Tellis analysis though right on many counts(14 & 15) is flawed for it ignores the role of the 3.5 in propping up Pakistan to allow it to punch above its weight.

Outcome 28 and unravel Pakistan which is not in his outcome as he prefers to keep Pakistan together is what I see.

29 is Not happening.
- When China gave the bomb in 1986 it washed it hands off that role.
- US under Clinton created Hurriyats to create space to needle GOI to give up nukes.

Didn't happen.



He will get this message.

Rajamohan is showing his usual useless lackey role.

Pity he was a chosen one by KS garu.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2167
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby nam » 04 Jan 2018 01:32

Giving any gains to pakis means accepting their policy of using terror. The excuse that India is a bigger power so Pakistan uses terror is nonsense. They use the same policy with Afghanistan. Are afghans a bigger power than Pakistan.?

We all know Kashmir is just a stepping stone. Giving Kashmir is not going to resolve the enemity. Thier objective is lordship over India.

The modern day mughal empire. From Kabul to kanyakumari.

So why don't they give up. History says ghori tried many times and finally defeated prithviraj cauhan. Pakis know their history, we ignore ours.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8279
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby anupmisra » 04 Jan 2018 03:24

Holy cr@p! Just when we are about to meet our 72's, out pops this moron and his geriatric ramblings that just makes this thread so much worthwhile.

History teaches us not to trust the United States, says Khawaja Asif

Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif through a series of tweets reminded the United States of the services Pakistan had rendered during the past several years
You have asked what did we do? A dictator surrendered [before the US] on a single phone call, our country witnessed the worse bloodbath, you carried out 57,800 attacks on Afghanistan from our bases, your forces were supplied arms and explosives through our soil, thousands of our civilians and soldiers became victims of the war initiated by you
We considered your enemy as our own
we filled the Guantanamo Bay
we served you with such an enthusiasm
We tried to please you
we provided tens of thousands of visas as a result of which the networks of Black Water spread across our country
We are feeling sorry as you are not happy :((
we will not compromise on our prestige anymore


Call me Ishmael, but doesn't this sound like an old, tired, used-up hag complaining to her john why she is still worth it and a littany of confession of her past doings?

https://www.dawn.com/news/1380568/histo ... awaja-asif

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8279
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby anupmisra » 04 Jan 2018 03:32

Alright. Here's the tally of support from the 2.5 friends. China has spoken (on behalf of pakhanistan). Now this from Erdogan, the caliph-in-making. Enjoy the public love fest.

'Pakistan's sacrifices are historic,' Erdogan expresses solidarity in call to Mamnoon

The Turkish president assured his Pakistani counterpart of full support and cooperation "in any situation"
He said Pakistan had rendered historic sacrifices in the war against terrorism.
President Hussain said Pakistan is a responsible country
He said Pakistan believes in a policy of engagement and cooperation
Thanking the Turkish president for expressing solidarity with Pakistan, Hussain said, "This love-filled message has made us feel proud."
Pakistan and Turkey are brotherly countries
A day earlier, China too had thrown its weight behind Pakistan


So, that just leaves al saudis to throw their half weight behind al bakistan, right?

https://www.dawn.com/news/1380592/pakis ... to-mamnoon

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6531
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby Peregrine » 04 Jan 2018 03:55

US threatens to unveil anti-Pakistan actions

WASHINGTON/ISLAMABAD: The US, accusing Pakistan of playing a ‘double game’ on fighting terrorism, has said it will unveil actions this week designed to force Pakistan to crack down on terrorism on its soil, escalating a war of words that has brought their uneasy alliance to a crisis point.

“They can do more to stop terrorism and we want them to do that,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters, warning Islamabad it would have to do more if it wanted to maintain US aid.

The White House said it would likely announce actions to pressure Pakistan within days, shortly after US Ambassador Nikki Haley said at the United Nations that Washington would withhold $255 million in assistance to Pakistan.

UNGA committee: Pakistan ‘has turned tide against terrorism’

“In terms of specific actions, I think you’ll see some more details come out on that in the next 24 to 48 hours,” Sanders said, adding, “We know that Pakistan can do more to fight terrorism, and we want them to step up and do that.”

US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley accused Islamabad of playing a ‘double game’ by claiming to support the US-led war against terrorism while providing a haven to terrorist groups.

“They work with us at times, and they also harbour the terrorists that attack our troops in Afghanistan,” Haley said.

“That game is not acceptable to this administration. We expect far more co-operation from Pakistan in the fight against terrorism.”

The comments followed an angry tweet from President Donald Trump on Monday that the United States had been rewarded with “nothing but lies and deceit” for ‘foolishly’ giving Pakistan more than $33 billion in aid in the past 15 years.

“They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!” he tweeted.

Pakistan civilian and military leadership on Tuesday rejected ‘incomprehensible’ US comments and summoned American Ambassador David Hale to explain Trump’s tweet.

President Donald Trump was willing “to go to great lengths to stop all funding from Pakistan as they continue to harbour and support terrorism”, she added, prompting a sharp retort from her Pakistani counterpart at the UN, Maleeha Lodhi, who said her country’s fight against terrorism was not based on any consideration of aid but on national interests and principles.

“Pakistan’s co-operation is not based on any consideration of aid but on our national interests and principles,” Lodhi said.

“We have contributed and sacrificed the most in fighting international terrorism and carried out the largest counter terrorism operation anywhere in the world,” Lodhi said.

“We can review our cooperation if it is not appreciated,” she said and added, “US spokespersons should not shift the blame for their own mistakes and failures onto others.”

At the State Department on Tuesday, spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Pakistan knew what it needed to do, including taking action against the Haqqani network and other militants.

Pakistan needs to “earn, essentially, the money that we have provided in the past in foreign military assistance”, she said.

Islamabad bristles at the suggestion it is not doing enough to fight militants, noting that its casualties at the hands of terrorists since 2001 number in the tens of thousands.

Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi on Tuesday chaired a National Security Committee meeting of civilian and military chiefs, focusing on Trump’s tweet.

The meeting, which lasted nearly three hours, was brought forward by a day and followed an earlier meeting of army generals.

The committee, in a statement issued by the prime minister’s office, did not name Trump but spoke of “deep disappointment” at a slew of critical comments from US officials over the past few months.

“Recent statements and articulation by the American leadership were completely incomprehensible as they contradicted facts manifestly, struck with great insensitivity at the trust between two nations built over generations, and negated the decades of sacrifices made by the Pakistani nation,” it said.

Cheers Image

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23281
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby SSridhar » 04 Jan 2018 07:54

ramana wrote: . . is flawed for it ignores the role of the 3.5 in propping up Pakistan to allow it to punch above its weight.

Yes, I got the feeling that he wasn't willing to say anything against the US because clearly, behind the clenched Pakistani fist was the US of A.

He just diplomatically said that Pakistan was allowed to punch above its weight and left it for us to infer.

However, his conclusion practically left unsaid that there is no realistic way out. IMO, it may not be any different from what we feel here namely that Pakistan must be dismantled.

In fact, while answering a question, possibly from a Pakistani, that if Pakistan approaches the dialogue with an idea of altering India's basic approach to its interests, it was a NO GO.

Alyssa Ayres, another panelist, wanted talks to take place for the reason that it could act as a pressure valve that could be released if things went too far. Useless academic suggestion because Pakistan is not a normal country and we have gone down that path several times before finally ending up where we are today.

Swaminathan Aiyyar, brother of Mani Shankar Aiyyar, indulged in some Modi bashing during the question time.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6245
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby Amber G. » 04 Jan 2018 08:32

Bruce Riedel's piece;
BARKING OR BITING?
Trump’s Tweet About Pakistan as a Terrorist Haven Was Right. But What Will He Do About It?

Pakistan’s generals, who run the policy supporting terrorism, believe Trump is all bluster. And they may be correct, but there is much Washington can do if it is serious.
Bruce Riedel
BRUCE RIEDEL
01.03.18 4:06 PM ET
Image
Earlier this week President Donald Trump tweeted that his two predecessors had spent $33 billion in aid attempting unsuccessfully to persuade Pakistan to change its policies protecting terrorists. “No more!” he vowed.

Trump’s proclamation on Twitter shouldn’t come as a surprise. His administration has accurately described Pakistan’s support for terrorism in general and the Afghan Taliban in particular.

But it has yet to lay out a strategy to deal with the issue.

Pakistan’s generals, who run the policy supporting terrorism, believe Trump is all bark and no bite. And so far they look to be right, but there is much Washington can do if it is serious.

For months the administration has spoken out clearly about the Pakistani army’s longstanding support for organizations like the Haqqani network in the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar e Tayyiba, focused on Kashmir and India.

The army and its intelligence service, the Inter Services Intelligence directorate (ISI), has trained, equipped, advised and directed the Afghan Taliban and LeT for decades. The ISI was deeply involved in Taliban attacks in Kabul and the LeT attack in Mumbai in 2008. It facilitates their fundraising in the Gulf states. It provides safe haven and sanctuary for the leadership of these groups. LeT leader Hafiz Saeed operates openly in Pakistan, routinely denouncing America, India, and Israel.


>>>Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, 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!

7:12 AM - Jan 1, 2018
54,148 54,148 Replies 98,757 98,757 Retweets 295,564 295,564 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Trump officials have been explicit and unequivocal about all this, including in the roll out of their Afghanistan policy and the overall presentation of security strategy.


“We will press Pakistan to intensify its counterterrorism efforts, since no partnership can survive a country’s support for militants and terrorists who target a partner’s own service members and officials,” read the National Security Strategy document issued in December. “The United States will also encourage Pakistan to continue demonstrating that it is a responsible steward of its nuclear assets,” which no doubt are a complicating factor.


Vice President Mike Pence put Pakistan “on notice” about terrorism when he visited Afghanistan last month.

But most of the $33 billion in aid that Trump referred to, more than $25 billion, was provided before the SEAL raid that found and killed Osama bin Laden hiding in the army cantonment city of Abbottabad in 2011. Withholding money is not much of a penalty, the $250 million in the pipeline is an insignificant threat.

Meanwhile, the administration has done little to engage the Pakistanis. Trump snubbed the Pakistani leadership when he visited Saudi Arabia on his first foreign travel, even though the Saudis has brought the top political leadership to the Riyadh summit. Pence did not travel to Pakistan. Nor has the administration tried to rally our allies in NATO to press the Pakistanis about Afghanistan, which is their war, too.

The Pakistani establishment believe that Washington and especially the president is not seriously committed to the Afghan mission and will eventually disengage from America’s longest war, leaving Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban the winners. The President has already said his generals convinced him to ignore his own predilection to get out of Afghanistan immediately. If they fail to show significant progress this year, Trump may well go with his own gut.

There is much the administration can do to alter Pakistan’s assessment. Some steps would be mostly symbolic but important. Washington could remove Pakistan from the category of a major non-NATO ally which George W. Bush gave it, a designation that has nothing to do with NATO but does qualify the country for receiving certain military technologies. The administration could also recall our ambassador and not replace him.

A more substantial approach would involve exploiting the president’s strong relationships with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Both host large émigré Pakistani worker populations and have been major aid donors to Pakistan’s economy. The former head of the Afghan Taliban, Mullah Mansour, was a frequent traveler to Dubai and Manama, Bahrain, to raise money for the group until he was killed in a drone strike in 2016 in Pakistan’s Baluchistan province.

The Trump team should press Mohammed bin Salman in Riyadh and Mohammed bin Zayed in Abu Dhabi, the powerful crown princes of their countries, to not only shut down the Taliban’s fund raising but to prosecute their funders even if they have royal connections. Both states have close ties to the ISI.

The Saudis and their gulf allies say they are committed to fighting terrorism. Washington should put the Afghan Taliban, which kills American soldiers, at the top of the list.

Moreover, the Saudis should use their considerable influence to cut the ISI aid to the Taliban. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was just in Riyadh looking for Saudi help. He and his brother Shabaz, who also just visited the kingdom, are the two most important civilian politicians in their country. The generals are frequent visitors to Saudi Arabia as well.

The most extreme step the administration can take is to label Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism, like Iran. This would cut off all assistance and engagement with Pakistan. It would cut spare parts for the F16s in the Pakistan Air Force and other equipment provided since 2001. The United States would block multinational bank funding for Pakistan’s economy. It’s a draconian step but the evidence clearly qualifies for Pakistan’s designation.

George H.W. Bush considered the step in 1992 when I was the Pakistan desk officer in the White House. He wrote to then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif threatening designation. But both Bush and Sharif were out of power before the issue came to closure. It’s probably better used as a threat than actually implemented, but it’s in Trump’s tool bag.

A

The Taliban is a harder target than al Qaeda was because it often operates in major Pakistani cities like Quetta and Karachi, but it is vulnerable to disruption.

The virtue of the unilateral approach is it doesn’t rely on Pakistani cooperation, which is an unlikely outcome at best. It can also be used in conjunction with an engagement approach that acknowledges that Pakistan is a major victim of terrorism as well as a patron sponsor.

The administration, which has been debating policy for a year, does have options at its disposal.

A comprehensive approach that utilizes multiple tools – diplomatic, economic and covert – is best. Engagement with the elected leadership of Pakistan and also a reach out directly to the Pakistani people, the greatest victims of the ISI’s blowback, should be incorporated. China and India should be consulted.

The administration has diagnosed the problem, now it is facing the hard part. It won’t be easy.
Pakistan is in the midst of a complex political meltdown, engineered by the army and others. New elections will come this year. But the need for urgency is also real, especially for our troops in Afghanistan. Congress should press for more than a tweet.




arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10171
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby arun » 04 Jan 2018 09:46

Amber G. wrote:Bruce Riedel's piece;

BARKING OR BITING?

Trump’s Tweet About Pakistan as a Terrorist Haven Was Right. But What Will He Do About It?



Pakistan’s generals, who run the policy supporting terrorism, believe Trump is all bluster. And they may be correct, but there is much Washington can do if it is serious.


………………..{Rest Snipped}……………..


The recognition that US President is blustering regards the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan seems to be well setting in among American Foreign policy types :lol: .

To go with the above Bruce Riedel article, an article titled “Pakistan Has All the Leverage Over Trump : The president can tweet all the threats he wants, but Pakistan’s leaders aren’t worried.", by C Christine Fair, Associate Professor at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, points out that as long as the US identifies Shia Iran as the bigger problem, it is the Sunni Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Pakistan that holds all the cards. Thus she concludes that US President Donald Trump can huff and puff all he wants but the US is eventually going to have to tuck its tail between its legs and back off.

I trust our foreign policy establishment learns this lesson (and learns it well) that administering the stick on the US backside is an entirely feasible option with containable downside and proceeds to do so whenever the US infringes on our national interests starting with providing military aid to the Islamic Republic. No more free pass for the US paying out large sums as Jaziya to the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan to achieve goals in Afghanistan :


While Trump can tweet whatever he wants about Pakistan or Iran, the professionals on his staff know the truth: U.S. policy in Afghanistan requires a port with road or rail access to Afghanistan. This administration — like each one before — has cast its lot with Pakistan. And this administration will confront the same failures as its predecessors. Logistics will beat strategy every time.


From Foreign Policy here:

Pakistan Has All the Leverage Over Trump : The president can tweet all the threats he wants, but Pakistan’s leaders aren’t worried.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1768
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby manjgu » 04 Jan 2018 11:32

actually short of military options..US can bring significant economic presure if it so desires. its interesting how things unfold from here. almost 40% of Paki exports are to US .. IMF etc..

saip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3490
Joined: 17 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby saip » 04 Jan 2018 14:33

Another fake video of Jadhav put out by the famed Spy Agency.

Fake Nation

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10171
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby arun » 04 Jan 2018 15:09

Excerpt from interview of US National Security Advisor Gen H.R. McMaster (Retd.) dealing with the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan:

January 03, 2018 10:12 PM
Greta Van Susteren

VOA Interview: Security Adviser McMaster Discusses Iran, Pakistan

WASHINGTON —
VOA contributor Greta Van Susteren interviewed National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster at the White House on Tuesday. …………………

Q: …………. Let me turn now to Pakistan. And the president tweeted that the United States — this is from one of his first tweets of the new year — ‘The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, 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!’ So, he has upped the pressure on Pakistan. Why? And to what end?

McMaster: Well, I think the tweet speaks for itself. I mean, the president’s frustrated, and he values what we hope would be a partnership with Pakistan. But he’s frustrated at Pakistan’s behavior in that it continues to provide support for these groups, it goes after terrorist insurgent groups, really, very selectively, and uses others as an arm of their foreign policy. The president has great sympathy for the Pakistani people and in particular, how much they’ve suffered at the hands of terrorists who have victimized so many Pakistanis with mass murders, with that horrible mass murder in a school a few years ago. I mean, so, he empathizes with the Pakistani people, and he wants to see the Pakistani government go after these groups less selectively.

This is not a blame game, as some would say. This is really our effort to communicate clearly to Pakistan that our relationship can no longer bear the weight of contradictions, and that we have to really begin now to work together to stabilize Afghanistan. And in a way, that would be a huge benefit to Pakistan, as well. What’s frustrating at times is we see Pakistan operating against the interests of its own people by going after these groups only selectively, by providing safe havens and support bases for Taliban and Haqqani network leadership that operate out of Pakistan as they perpetuate hell in portions of Pakistan and in Afghanistan.

Q: I traveled with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Pakistan years ago when she was delivering news of an aid package — about $7 billion — a significant amount for the Pakistanis. And I remember that the Pakistanis were upset because we wanted to know how the money was going to be spent. They were very upset. So, you have that incredible sort of disconnect that did not seem to me to be outrageous that we’d want to know how our money was going to be spent. On the other hand, when you don’t give money to these countries, someone else steps in, so that’s the risk.

McMaster: Well, I don’t think … who’s going to step in now, I think, and want Pakistan to continue its support for terrorist groups like the Haqqani network, for groups like the Taliban? I mean, certainly it’s not in China’s interest. China has a terrorist problem on its southern border, a terrorist problem that does have connections back into Pakistan. It’s not going to be any other country in the region, certainly, who will want Pakistan to continue this, really, pattern of behavior that we’ve seen, where it goes after these groups only selectively, while it sustains and supports others who act as an arm of its foreign policy. So, I think we’re confident that … I mean, Pakistan doesn’t want to become a pariah state. Pakistan is a country with tremendous potential — human potential, economic potential. So, what we really would like to see is Pakistan act in its own interest and to stop going after these groups only selectively, and to stop providing safe havens and support bases and other forms of support for leadership.

Q: How do you put into the equation the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear country, and that they have also palled around, at least historically, with North Korea on nuclear weapons? Do they hold some sort of -- I don’t want to use the term blackmail, it’s too strong — but they do have that as a lever.

McMaster: Well, I think it would just be unwise for any Pakistani leader — I can’t imagine a Pakistani leader using nuclear weapons to extort or for blackmail. That’s the day when Pakistan …

Q: That’s what North Korea is doing.

McMaster: Well, I mean, does Pakistan want to become North Korea? Doesn’t look too appealing a model to me. So, I think Pakistan could be on a path to increase security and prosperity, or it could be on a path to replicating North Korea. I think that’s an easy choice for Pakistani leaders.


From VOA here:


VOA Interview: Security Adviser McMaster Discusses Iran, Pakistan

sunnyP
BRFite
Posts: 1320
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 16:52

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby sunnyP » 04 Jan 2018 15:50

saip wrote:Another fake video of Jadhav put out by the famed Spy Agency.

Fake Nation



What’s the solution to this? Pakis are mentally torturing Commander Jadhav by forcing him to film all these fake videos.

saip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3490
Joined: 17 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby saip » 04 Jan 2018 16:13

Pakistan Navy 'successfully' fires anti-ship missile

Look at the comment

Ha,ha

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6531
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby Peregrine » 04 Jan 2018 17:16

ONLY IN TERRORISTAN!

Will serve legal notice to Pakistan defence minister: JuD

LAHORE: The JuD has said it will serve a legal notice to Pakistan's defence minister for "defaming" it, days after the government banned the Hafiz Saeed-led outfit from collecting donations following US President Donald Trump's outburst against Islamabad's sheltering of terrorists.

Taking exception to Khurram Dastgir's statement that action against the Jamaat-ud Dawa was not taken due to mounting pressure from the US, JuD spokesperson Yahya Mujahid said Dastgir is "speaking the language of US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi".

He also criticised the minister for saying that the action was taken against JuD, FIF and other organisations so that "terrorists cannot open fire on schoolchildren anymore".

"This is outrageous," Mujahid said adding "we are serving legal notice to the minister for his outrageous remarks".

Pakistan banned Mumbai attack mastermind Hafiz Saeed-led JuD and Falah-i-Insaniyat Foundation (FIF) from collecting donations on Monday, after Trump accused Islamabad of giving nothing to the US except "lies and deceit" and providing "safe haven" to terrorists.

In a statement, the JuD spokesperson said, "World knows who is behind the steps against JuD and FIF. Our rulers are reluctant to mention the involvement of India in terrorist activities in Pakistan. Efforts are being made to please external lords by propagating against those forces that have actively played role in Pakistan's defence," he said.

"Those trying to malign Pakistan's national security institutions through conspiracies such as Dawn Leaks have finally met their fate (a reference to ousted premier Nawaz Sharif) but still they seem to have learnt no lesson. Now, when America is openly threatening us and inciting India to take action against Pakistan, Pakistani rulers are engaged in the sycophancy of India and America," Mujahid said.

On Thursday, Dastgir had said Pakistan acted against JuD and FIF not under "pressure" from the US but after "serious deliberations", as part of the military's operation to disarm and eliminate hidden terrorist sleeper cells across the country with support of local law enforcement agencies.

The government has banned companies and individuals from making donations to the JuD, the FIF and other organisations on the UN Security Council sanctions list.

The Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) issued a notification prohibiting the collection of donations by the JuD, the front organisation of banned terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba, as well as several other such organisations named in a list of banned outfits by the UN Security Council.

Cheers Image

ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1390
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby ashish raval » 04 Jan 2018 17:17

On the other hand, when you don’t give money to these countries, someone else steps in, so that’s the risk.

McMaster: Well, I don’t think … who’s going to step in now, I think, and want Pakistan to continue its support for terrorist groups like the Haqqani network, for groups like the Taliban?


Now this is kind of logic presented by "strategic thinkers" that upsets me the most. I don't get what has changed between 2007 and 2017 for Pakistan? Who was going to step in funding if not America in 2007 versus who is not going to step in 2017!! Incredibly stupid to even think that someone if not us was going to step in back then so we stepped in to provide for it to get access and now no one is going to step in and we can turn tap off. I think these guys are taking people for fools. This is purely tactical decisions devoid of any factual analysis.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23281
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby SSridhar » 04 Jan 2018 17:50

Nawaz Sharif laments

“We should ask ourselves why the world never listens to us in spite of the countless sacrifices that our police, security forces, civilians and even children have given over the past 17 years. Why is our narrative not being accepted?”

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23281
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby SSridhar » 04 Jan 2018 18:24

From NSA McMaster's interview,
What’s frustrating at times is we see Pakistan operating against the interests of its own people by going after these groups only selectively, by providing safe havens and support bases for Taliban and Haqqani network leadership that operate out of Pakistan as they perpetuate hell in portions of Pakistan and in Afghanistan.


It is precisely for that reason that Pakistan distinguished between 'good' & 'bad' Taliban. The 'good' Taliban that Pakistan supports are not attacking Pakistan. The Haqqanis do not attack Pakistan. LeT & JeM don't attack Pakistan (well, a part of JeM might have tried to eliminate Musharraf and joined hands with the 'bad' terrorists but that was a long time back)

So, what is the NSA saying? The Pakis have already covered that base.

Nawaz Sharif's lament, a part of which I posted above, answers McMaster's charge above. “ US president should know that as soon as we – the PML-N – came into power in 2013, we took effective steps to end terrorism in Pakistan,” he said, adding that Operation Zarb-e-Azb had ‘broken the back of the terrorists’. QED. No more terrorism within Pakistan.

The only remaining Pakistani terrorists are those who attack India. In fact, those who attack Afghanistan, like the Haqqanis, are indeed Afghans, not Pakistanis. They may move back and forth across the border. The Pakis would claim that the border being porous and Pashtuns living on either side, they can't curb such activities. On earlier occasions, when the US forewarned Pakistan of attacks on terror camps within Pakistan, the ISI promptly evacuated the terrorists. The US protestations made no headway with Pakistan.

The US has in the past argued that India must understand the security paranoia of Pakistan. Its (in)famous reasoning for stacking Pakistan with weapons was to 'precisely reduce this paranoia', as the Americans wanted us to believe. Well, it is the turn of the Americans to feel the Pakistani paranoia now.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6531
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby Peregrine » 04 Jan 2018 19:14

Amid worsening tensions, US and Pakistan announce they will only speak to each other on Twitter - Michael Kugelman

Amid dangerously deepening tensions, Washington and Islamabad have announced they will be downgrading their diplomacy to Twitter-based communication only.

“Given the recent difficulties in our relations, and given the ability of President Trump and many of our ministers to interact adroitly via Twitter, we have decided to restrict our communications to that medium only, for the time being,” according to a statement issued by Pakistan’s foreign ministry.

Meanwhile, the White House released the following statement: “Until Pakistan demonstrates that it is doing more to take out the terrorists that target our troops in Afghanistan, we will limit our relations to rapid-fire bursts of 140—sorry, 280 (yay!)—character tweets.”

In interviews, officials in both capitals pledged support for the decision, which one White House staffer referred to as “tough love, Twitter style.”

Image

Tough love, Twitter style: Exhibition 1.

“We have repeatedly conveyed the need for Pakistan to step up its game when it comes to terror,” said a US official reached by phone who demanded anonymity for reasons that are unclear, other than the fact that Americans like to make demands.

“We have conveyed this demand repeatedly through every communication channel known to humanity, including in-person meetings, public statements, emails, faxes, Morse code, smoke signals—the frequent smog in Islamabad helps with that—and much more. But it hasn’t worked.

“We’d like to push it more on Twitter, a platform the President already uses so frequently and which enjoys the multiplier effect of social media. We can get through to many folks. Just watch.”

When asked why the US would expect to be any more successful on Twitter than off it, the official had a quick answer: “The power of replication.”

Pressed further, the official said, “The magic of Twitter enables us to say ‘do more’ many times in a single missive.” The sound of a pen scribbling on paper could be heard in the background.

Image

The list was too long for a screenshot but if you're curious, Pakistan is on 16th spot.


Then the US official continued: “I’ve just done the math. With the new 280 character limit, the President can say ‘do more’ 40 times in a single tweet. That’s remarkable.”

At the State Department, where it took numerous attempts to get someone to answer the phone, several officials acknowledged that restricting diplomatic relations to Twitter—notorious for its toxic environment—could further poison bilateral relations.

“That may be true,” one State officer said, sighing, “but then again, it’s not our call.”

Several staffers at the State Department looked on the bright side. “Our diplomats’ access to Pakistanis is often limited due to security considerations.

“Now, via Twitter, we’ll have instant access to the highly strategic demographic—young, urban-based, tech-savvy, English-speaking—that dominates the Pakistani Twittersphere,” one opined.

When told that Pakistan’s roughly three million Twitter users may also include many boisterous bots that are not terribly inclined to engage cordially with US officials, the staffer did not respond.

Image

TBT to rosier times

On the Pakistani side, policymakers cast the move as inevitable. “They often don’t speak nicely to us in person,” reasoned one official, “so why not just give in and take to Twitter, where no one ever seems to talk nicely to anyone.”

Pakistani officials, like their American counterparts, looked on the bright side. “Twitter-based ties shall promote democracy,” said one.

“We will be speaking directly to the people, while being fully transparent in our deliberations. We have the option of doing Twitter polls.

“And if there’s a need to opt for the back channel route, or if the Americans need a quiet and private space to conduct that audit we’ve invited them to undertake, then we’ll simply resort to DM.

“Does President Trump have an open DM policy?”

“Also,” the official continued, “US-Pakistan Twitterplomacy will provide open channels for dissent. The Insaafians and Ghairat Brigade can weigh in angrily with their awkwardly worded hash tags.

“And ISPR will surely step in with inputs when necessary, and when not necessary as well.”

Image

To be honest ...

Asked why Pakistan would settle for an arrangement that could presumably lead to more abrasive treatment, the official replied:

“We’re used to it, we can deal with it, and best of all Twitter allows us to mute or block the invective if we wish. In effect, we can easily deflect their demands.

“When they tweet ‘do more,’ we’ll tweet ‘no more.’ We’ll mute them if they persist. This constant dynamic, so onerous and uncomfortable offline, is a quick and painless 280-character process on Twitter.”

There may be something fitting about US-Pakistan relations being relegated to the Twittersphere. “Twitter and US-Pakistan relations, improbably enough, are like two peas in a pod,” according to a sideburned South Asia analyst in Washington who seemingly opines on everything under the Subcontinental sun.

“Pundits have long forecast the demise of both, and yet each manages to survive. And now we have these two resilient forces coming together as one.”

“Poetic, isn’t it?”

Cheers Image Image

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8279
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby anupmisra » 04 Jan 2018 19:53



Good to know that Kugelman can write a tongue-in-cheek spoof of an article. He went paki a long time ago.
https://twitter.com/michaelkugelman?lang=en

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23281
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby SSridhar » 04 Jan 2018 20:02

^ Agreed

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18370
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby chetak » 04 Jan 2018 20:38

ramana wrote:Yes Ashley Tellis analysis though right on many counts(14 & 15) is flawed for it ignores the role of the 3.5 in propping up Pakistan to allow it to punch above its weight.

Outcome 28 and unravel Pakistan which is not in his outcome as he prefers to keep Pakistan together is what I see.

29 is Not happening.
- When China gave the bomb in 1986 it washed it hands off that role.
- US under Clinton created Hurriyats to create space to needle GOI to give up nukes.

Didn't happen.



He will get this message.

Rajamohan is showing his usual useless lackey role.

Pity he was a chosen one by KS garu.


Edited

Duplicate post.
Last edited by chetak on 04 Jan 2018 21:33, edited 1 time in total.

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1524
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby Bart S » 04 Jan 2018 20:50

saip wrote:Another fake video of Jadhav put out by the famed Spy Agency.

Fake Nation


They have actually considerably weakened their own case before the outside world, with these farcical videos.

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1524
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby Bart S » 04 Jan 2018 20:52

anupmisra wrote:


Good to know that Kugelman can write a tongue-in-cheek spoof of an article. He went paki a long time ago.
https://twitter.com/michaelkugelman?lang=en


Unfortunately he is still treated as some kind of all-knowing and credible expert by our media.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18370
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby chetak » 04 Jan 2018 21:26

ramana wrote:Yes Ashley Tellis analysis though right on many counts(14 & 15) is flawed for it ignores the role of the 3.5 in propping up Pakistan to allow it to punch above its weight.

Outcome 28 and unravel Pakistan which is not in his outcome as he prefers to keep Pakistan together is what I see.

29 is Not happening.
- When China gave the bomb in 1986 it washed it hands off that role.
- US under Clinton created Hurriyats to create space to needle GOI to give up nukes.

Didn't happen.



He will get this message.

Rajamohan is showing his usual useless lackey role.

Pity he was a chosen one by KS garu.


I don't think that the musharraf option has been completely disclosed.

I have a very strong feeling that there is something vital that is being kept back that is causing all concerned to hold back.

and that is keeping the congis from actively moving forward.

the ms aiyer "dinner meeting" was not as innocent as is being played out. Too many big guns, all in one place at the same time for it to be anything but an innocent dinner meeting

Something is up. Absolutely no need for the pakis to have an official rep at the meeting in the form of their HC.

No bunch of Indians would be entertained like this in any city in pakiland. Most of the guys attending have dubious backgrounds including the ex COAS, who is enmeshed in the kargil widow's housing scam.

That is all apart from the very propriety of holding such a meeting with an ex pm and an ex vp + the HC of pakiland.

tellis has only made public the options that are palatable to the amrekis. If paki land unravelled, the nukes would pose an immediate and worldwide threat. The amreki contingency would certainly involve the use of India's bases as well as Indian boots on the ground under amreki command. Maybe after a polite and standard "we will bomb you into the stone age speech" to the Indian leadership if some reluctance is shown by us to get involved.

VishalJ
BRFite
Posts: 983
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 06:40
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby VishalJ » 04 Jan 2018 22:06


Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1524
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby Bart S » 04 Jan 2018 22:40

^I am not sure that it is a good idea to post their propaganda videos here (or anywhere). If anyone really wants to watch it, they can probably search and find it.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8279
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby anupmisra » 04 Jan 2018 22:50

VishalJ wrote:


Unbelievable!

How did KJ hear the "Indian" diplomat when there were at least two layers of acoustical glass partitions between him and the diplomat, who was permitted to join in late? Or is KJ now a lip reader? Also, the use of self-praising phrases like "pakistani grand gesture", "physical fitness", "feeling relaxed", "said a dua (not prathna)", "diet is beautiful", "they have taken care of me", "they have not touched me", "my mother and my wife were briefed", "they have been threatened", "the Indian person".... are all ISPR-pakjabi-type-crafted amateurish reactions to the overall public shaming that the ISPR has received after the staged meeting.

Bottom line, this video (shot in front of a black screen) is probably the worst - staged drama I have ever seen in a long time. Pakis have a Faustian bargain on hand. They have a "so called terrorist" sentenced to death, but can not now put to death. KJ has played this singing canary role rather well.

After this put on show, I think KJ will seek and secure clemency and probably residency in a third country. He is not coming back to India. Just my opinion.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8279
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby anupmisra » 04 Jan 2018 22:51

Bart S wrote:^I am not sure that it is a good idea to post their propaganda videos here (or anywhere). If anyone really wants to watch it, they can probably search and find it.


I am ok with it here. Shows how amateurish the pakjabi ISPR is.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8279
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby anupmisra » 04 Jan 2018 22:54

US places Pakistan on a special watch list 'for severe violations of religious freedom'

The move comes days after US President Donald Trump said Pakistan had given the US nothing but lies and deceit, despite Washington giving it more than $33 billion in aid.
"Today, a number of governments infringe upon individuals’ ability to adapt, change, or renounce their religion or belief, worship in accordance with their religion or beliefs, or be free from coercion to practice a particular religion or belief."
Being on the watch list means Pakistan is a step away from being included in the "Countries of Particular Concern" list.


One paki reaction (or is it a BRFite?):

Khalid Khan, USA (Originally From OCCUPIED KARACHI)
about an hour ago
Very Good


https://www.dawn.com/news/1380767/us-pl ... us-freedom

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8279
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Terroristan - 29 September 2017

Postby anupmisra » 04 Jan 2018 23:21

From the mouth of a dementially- and genetically-challenged paki:

Pakistan can survive without taking financial assistance from US: Khawaja Asif

Pakistan can survive without taking aid from the United States as it survived in the past [when US had suspended assistance to Pakistan]
Referring to the Pressler Amendment
"They did it in the past as well, which is evident from our history. They have always betrayed us in hard times."
Asif held both the US and India responsible for the prevailing unrest in the region
"There is a nexus between the US and India, they share the same stakes"
"the US wants to use India like they used Pakistan in the past, or maybe a step further"
Washinton and New Dehli believe the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project was posing threats to their interests.
There is no organised presence of terrorists on Pakistani soil, he said, adding that the reduced number of drone attacks is a proof of this.
"We are not diplomatically isolated."


So, there!

https://www.dawn.com/news/1380768/pakis ... awaja-asif


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests