Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 29th May 2012

sum · Post by **sum** » 06 Jun 2012 21:55

Heard on the grapevine: The most popular baby name in North Waziristan presently is 'Not Al- Libi'.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 06 Jun 2012 22:22

I guess we are looking at the post withdrawal US strategy for AfPak. Afghan forces on the ground under the watchful eyes of the Drones overhead inside Afghanistan. Drones in Pakistan.

partha · Post by **partha** » 06 Jun 2012 22:27

Baikul wrote: Heard on the grapevine: The most popular baby name in North Waziristan presently is 'Not Al- Libi'.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 06 Jun 2012 22:37

Panetta Defends Pakistan Drone Strikes

Mr. Panetta rejected Islamabad's argument.

"This is about our sovereignty as well," Mr. Panetta said. "Because there were a group of individuals who attacked us on 9/11 and killed 3,000 of our citizens."

In meetings with India's defense minister and national-security adviser, Mr. Panetta said he discussed the Haqqani network and other terrorist groups operating in Pakistan's federally administered tribal areas, known as the FATA.

U.S. officials have blamed the Haqqanis for a series of deadly attacks in Afghanistan, and in the past have accused elements of Pakistan's government of supporting the group.

"We are fighting a war in the FATA, we are fighting a war against terrorism," Mr. Panetta said.

U.S. officials will visit Pakistan this week to continue talks with Islamabad. Mr. Panetta said the U.S. will discuss the drone program with Pakistani officials, but that the strikes will continue. "We have made very clear that we are going to continue to defend ourselves," he said.

RCase · Post by **RCase** » 06 Jun 2012 22:41

pankajs wrote:US drone can be shot down with Hamza missile: Dr AQ Khan
Father of Pakistan nuclear programme, Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan has said that US drones can be shot down with Hamza missile. While addressing lawyers of Lahore bar, the nuclear scientist said that Pakistan was full of natural resources but the leaders had no good motive. He said that Pakistan had drone technology and added that drone could be shot down with Hamza missile. Dr AQ Khan said that if Pakistan can produce atomic weapon than it was not difficult to end its energy crisis. “The prime minister should have been disqualified when convicted,” he said.

Please, please, please the world would like to see the mooh-thod-jawab of a Hamza missile shooting down a drone!

Yes, they should test fire their missiles at live targets to demonstrate their missiles are the best in the world

! It will be fun to watch the reaction of a bird of prey being provoked. I am also wondering if their radars will now be working in the direction of Afghanistan, since they were only India specific.

vnadendla · Post by **vnadendla** » 06 Jun 2012 23:04

anupmisra wrote:
pankajs wrote:Dr AQ Khan
So, in a brief expanse of one paragraph, here's what photochor said:

Pa'stan can shoot down US drones with Hamza missile
Pa'stan was full of natural resources
Pa'stani leaders had no good motive
Pa'stan had drone technology
Pa'stan can produce atomic weapon
Pa'stan can end its energy crisis
Is there anything Pa'stan can not do or does not have?

Akal

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 06 Jun 2012 23:15

Aqal ka Dushman, Paki ka dost !!
Jannat Ki Nematon Ka Haseen Tasawwur
Stargare Replicators are installed in every tent.Babies Born Bithout Bain.
(30Minute Onward)
[youtube]uelbRnx8VBQ&feature=relmfu[/youtube]

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 06 Jun 2012 23:18

Opening the NATO Supply Route: Does Pakistan have any Option?

ABSTRACT: Though, for the time being, Pakistan may not open the NATO supply line as it has pegged its national pride to its demand to stop US drone attacks, an unconditional apology as well as a hike in the transit fee, all of which has been rejected by the US. For its part, the Pakistan Army also wants the pre-conditions set up by the PCNS to be met. This in fact has left very little room for the civilian government to manoeuvre. Apart from the loss of transit fees, Pakistan stands to lose out from reduced, if at all any, US payments as CSF (Coalition Support Funds). For the Pakistan FY 2012 (July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012) Pakistan had originally budgeted for a flow of about $ 1 billion as CSF assistance. In reality it did not get any CSF funds during FY 2012. Now the Pakistan budget for FY 2013 has once again assumed a CSF inflow of more than $ 1.2 billion. Unless it opens its GLOC, it is very unlikely that the US will transfer any CSF during this fiscal year as well. This will create serious trouble for the Pakistani economy which is dependent on US aid.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 06 Jun 2012 23:28

Nawaz Sharif says India copied Pak reforms in 90s

Former Prime Minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif said that India's reforms were influenced by his own government's initiatives in Pakistan.

...Sharif said, returning him to power would be the only way for Pakistan to once again move forward towards economic progress and social stability.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 07 Jun 2012 01:38

Pak copied Indian jihad policy

RCase · Post by **RCase** » 07 Jun 2012 01:42

^^^

What to do ...?

Pakistanis have large hearts and let India 'copy' their success model! But the Hindoo banias have small hearts and left the rest of South Asia behind in their economic progress leaving Pakistan to suffer economic damages of over $100 Billion.

Charlie · Post by **Charlie** » 07 Jun 2012 03:30

Turns out the 4 woman who were killed for "dancing" at wedding were actually clapping and singing what looks like a private room.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lEFUbMr ... e=youtu.be

Pakis are taking their barbarity to new depth each year. We Indians are truely different people.

Shaashtanga · Post by **Shaashtanga** » 07 Jun 2012 05:20

Charlie wrote:Turns out the 4 woman who were killed for "dancing" at wedding were actually clapping and singing what looks like a private room.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lEFUbMr ... e=youtu.be

Pakis are taking their barbarity to new depth each year. We Indians are truely different people.

I am eagerly waiting for such displays of piousness neuj to oooozzeee out of slumbad , la-whore & karahi. Enuf of this piousness emnating only from tribal areas, let the pakjabi mussalmans and Mohajirs also experience such piousness. Spread the habbiness. 3 cheers for more sharia & more piousness in slumbad , la-whore & karahi and all other major non-pious cities of proxytute.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 07 Jun 2012 06:18

pankajs wrote:Panetta Defends Pakistan Drone Strikes
Mr. Panetta rejected Islamabad's argument.

"This is about our sovereignty as well," Mr. Panetta said. "Because there were a group of individuals who attacked us on 9/11 and killed 3,000 of our citizens."

"We are fighting a war in the FATA, we are fighting a war against terrorism," Mr. Panetta said.

U.S. officials will visit Pakistan this week to continue talks with Islamabad. Mr. Panetta said the U.S. will discuss the drone program with Pakistani officials, but that the strikes will continue. "We have made very clear that we are going to continue to defend ourselves," he said.

This is the first time somebody in the GoTUS has taken on the 'soverignty' bluff of Pakistan.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 07 Jun 2012 06:34

Wife beater is threatening the US with nukes
http://dawn.com/2012/05/27/shame-in-chicago/

A limited ‘engagement’ could escalate rapidly into wide-ranging hostilities. If, during such a crisis, Pakistan’s strategic command believes that the US military strike is aimed to capture or destroy its nuclear and delivery capabilities, it may feel compelled to use rather than lose these capabilities.

ranjbe · Post by **ranjbe** » 07 Jun 2012 06:47

Untangling the Web of Pakistani Terrorist Groups and their Links to al-Qaeda

Discussion at Heritage Foundation, with usual suspects, Riedel, Lisa Curtis, etc. But the gloves are off now. Good pointer on how the US establishment now views Pakistan - what a change from even six months ago!

http://www.heritage.org/events/2012/05/ ... ror-groups

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 07 Jun 2012 06:48

Is he asking for third party mediation. Between US & TSP. Wow!! Holy wow.

The apocalyptic danger of a military conflict between two (albeit unequal) nuclear powers should be addressed urgently by the international community.

Given the changed nature of the relationship, including cuts in moneys owed to Pakistan, it is not unreasonable for Pakistan to demand ‘market rates’ for this service.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 07 Jun 2012 08:16

Shifting Indo-Pacific landscape
Doctored Maleecha Lowdhi
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9 ... -landscape

Panetta reiterated US commitment to strengthen alliances with Japan, Thailand, South Korea, the Philippines and Australia and expand “key” partnerships with India, Indonesia and Singapore. Despite protestations to the contrary, these plans and ongoing American efforts to woo and ‘rehabilitate’ Myanmar, represent a more overt expression of an evolving US policy to contain China’s rise.Conspicuously missing from Panetta’s speech was any mention of Pakistan. Even when he spoke of Afghanistan’s 2014 transition and the role that a number of Asia-Pacific nations are playing, he gratuitously skipped Pakistan. This underscored Washington’s present stance towards Islamabad and the depths to which bilateral relations have sunk.
When Panetta told the gathering that the strategic “pivot” was not aimed at containing China’s growing power it was met with disbelief by many. Conceding differences with China on several counts Panetta asserted that the only option was a “mature relationship” with China, improvement in military-to-military ties and communication with one another.When a questioner suggested that the enlarged American military footprint in the region would heighten tensions, Panetta reiterated the US desire to work with China. He also said Asian nations had to evolve ways to resolve their own disputes and not expect the US to come and do this for them.Another questioner pointed to comments in the official Chinese media warning that US militarism in the region would “endanger peace” with the announcement of the new American defence strategy in January. Panetta again said China should not be concerned about the new US military focus on Asia. Washington would endeavor to keep the world’s most critical bilateral relationship on an even keel. This reinforced an agreement between US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton and State Councillor, Dai Bingguo during last month’s strategic dialogue to prevent a clash, historically associated with a status quo and a fast-rising power.In its first official reaction to Panetta’s speech a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman described the American decision to shift the bulk of its naval fleet to the Pacific by 2020 as “untimely” and called on the US to play a constructive role and respect China’s interests in the region.In discussions on the sidelines of the Shangri La conference, concerns were voiced about the potential for instability in Sino-US ties as a result of enhanced military deployments in the Pacific. But the response from Chinese delegates was instructive. Their reaction was exceptionally calm and restrained, conveying an extraordinary sense of national self-confidence.hinese scholars seemed to take the new US military posture in their stride. The current US strength in the region is already “heavy” so “we live with this reality” said one non-official delegate. There will of course be challenges, he said, but there are opportunities for cooperation among regional states, as people want stability and don’t want to be forced to take sides.nother Chinese defence analyst told me that the US had always followed a two-track policy of engagement and containment with China. So the new US military posture offered no surprise. It was part of a familiar carrot and stick approach. China would of course take the evolving situation seriously but it would adopt a ‘preventive’ and ‘defensive’ posture, he added. Most important, said another Chinese delegate, was that these developments would not deflect China from focusing on its economic development and improving the lives of its people. Countries in the Asia-Pacific region want peace, development and cooperation, not another cold war. The priority therefore had to be on stability and not an arms race that would set back the goal of economic progress.The President of Indonesia, Dr Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in his keynote address, voiced similar sentiments. He called for seizing the strategic opportunity to build a lasting architecture of Asian security predicated on a “new geopolitics of cooperation”. Acknowledging that strategic mistrust still persists in Asia-Pacific he said the threat of military attack had given way to the danger of eruptions of border clashes, naval standoffs and brinkmanship.
“Today there is no war in Southeast Asia”. In contrast with the past ASEAN nations were in charge of regional affairs. While rivalry and competition existed, a win-win outcome was possible, driven in part by the emergence of nontraditional threats that urged collaboration among states.The Indian Ocean, he said, must not become the site of a new rivalry. As for the major powers, they had an obligation to construct peaceful and cooperative relations because the ramifications extended much beyond them.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 07 Jun 2012 08:22

SSridhar wrote:This is the first time somebody in the GoTUS has taken on the 'soverignty' bluff of Pakistan.

Not only that but he has directly linked 9/11 with Pak FATA.
From TOIlet report posted earlier.

pankajs wrote:He said the sovereignty of the United States was also at stake because the militants who planned the September 11 attacks were in Pakistan's tribal areas.

"The leadership of those who were involved in planning this attack are located in Pakistan, in the FATA," he said.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 07 Jun 2012 08:44

Anujan wrote:Wife beater is threatening the US with nukes
http://dawn.com/2012/05/27/shame-in-chicago/

From the above.

Instead, it was the US which imposed a ‘condition’ for Pakistan’s participation: prior acceptance that the supply routes to Afghanistan be reopened. Following a hasty meeting, the cabinet announced that the decision to reopen the supply route had been taken and the president would attend the summit.

A surprise awaited at the summit. President Obama refused to meet the Pakistan president ‘one-to-one’ unless Pakistan agreed to the immediate release of all the ‘held up’ cargo at the Karachi port. To his credit, President Zardari did not yield to this crass conditionality. This public insult was inflicted not only on the person of the president but the entire Pakistani nation.

How can this insulting and dismissive American posture be explained?

I have to give it to the pakis.

First, to get an invite, you let GoTUS think it has an agreement on the supply route. After you get the invite you do not keep your end of the bargain but expect the GoTUS to treat you with extreme deference. The GoTUS quickly realized the paki game and reversed course as far as possible. The paki's feign surprise or perhaps the surprise was real. The pakis work overtime to spin this into some sort of an affront to the nation of Pakistan.

All in all must have been very enlightening for Obama and the drone blitz started.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 07 Jun 2012 09:24

Anujan wrote:Wife beater is threatening the US with nukes
http://dawn.com/2012/05/27/shame-in-chicago/
A limited ‘engagement’ could escalate rapidly into wide-ranging hostilities. If, during such a crisis, Pakistan’s strategic command believes that the US military strike is aimed to capture or destroy its nuclear and delivery capabilities, it may feel compelled to use rather than lose these capabilities.

Use on whom is the question here.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 07 Jun 2012 09:26

Regarding the nuclear bomb scare in Pakistan

Sanger, David E. Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power Random House, Inc.

There was an “emerging intelligence picture,” Obama was told, that a particularly virulent strain of the Pakistani Taliban may actually have gotten its hands on the ultimate terror weapon. But no one knew for sure exactly what the Taliban had—if anything.

...

But no one thought Mehsud possessed the competence to handle a nuclear weapon, or the supply network to obtain one. Which is why the National Security Agency’s experts were surprised to hear conversations among Mehsud’s associates that, as one official characterized them to me, “strongly suggested they may have obtained nuclear materials, or a nuclear device.”

...

Obama dispatched several of his senior officials, amid great secrecy, to approach the Pakistanis with the conversations they had overheard. The initial response was unimpressive. “This turned out to be an important shakedown cruise,” said one participant in those panicked few days as officials tried to cut through the fog of ambiguous evidence. “We discovered we had American officials who didn’t know the difference between a nuclear bomb and a dirty bomb. And we had Pakistanis who just dismissed the report, and didn’t seem particularly interested in finding answers.” To anyone who had reviewed the classified simulations Washington had run of a nuclear crisis in Pakistan, this scenario was familiar: reluctant Pakistani officials, reams of unanswered questions, and missed signals.

...

“It was a pretty tense series of conversations,” one former senior intelligence official told me early in 2012. “We didn’t know if the Pakistanis really knew what was going on. And if they did discover something was missing, how could we be certain they would level with us?” In the end, the Pakistanis responded: they surveyed their arsenal and reported back that nothing was missing.

Within days the crisis began to evaporate, though even today there are conflicting stories about why. One senior American official told me the Taliban had fallen for the oldest trick in the nuclear book: a scam , in which they paid dearly for some nuclear material that was completely useless in building a weapon. A senior military official had a different account: the mistake was the NSA’s, which had trouble understanding the dialect in which Mehsud’s associates spoke. “They were saying they had gotten something. But the word they used didn’t necessarily mean it was nuclear.”

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 07 Jun 2012 09:48

pankajs wrote:Nawaz Sharif says India copied Pak reforms in 90s
Former Prime Minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif said that India's reforms were influenced by his own government's initiatives in Pakistan.
...Sharif said, returning him to power would be the only way for Pakistan to once again move forward towards economic progress and social stability.

So India now joins South Korea in copying TSP Policies and does better than it. Heh Heh

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 07 Jun 2012 09:55

ramana wrote:SSridhar and shyamd, Take a look at the format of this blog and see if you can improve your sites get more eyes. Need to appeal to the visual also.

ramana

PS: Jamwal please do take a look also

ramana, which site ?

jamwal, I need some quick help. Unable to contact you on your mail-id. Can you please send me a mail ?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 07 Jun 2012 09:59

Prasad wrote:quote="Anujan"]Wife beater is threatening the US with nukes
http://dawn.com/2012/05/27/shame-in-chicago/
A limited ‘engagement’ could escalate rapidly into wide-ranging hostilities. If, during such a crisis, Pakistan’s strategic command believes that the US military strike is aimed to capture or destroy its nuclear and delivery capabilities, it may feel compelled to use rather than lose these capabilities./quote]
Use on whom is the question here.

Offcourse he means Kaffir Idol worshippers in the East, thier Missiles cannot reach anyone else. They are hoping the Dilli Bellies will now come to thier rescue.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 07 Jun 2012 10:05

pankajs wrote:
Anujan wrote:Wife beater is threatening the US with nukes
http://dawn.com/2012/05/27/shame-in-chicago/
From the above.
How can this insulting and dismissive American posture be explained?

Pure business transactions can turn sour and have to be taken in stride.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 07 Jun 2012 10:23

pankajs wrote:
Anujan wrote:Wife beater is threatening the US with nukes
http://dawn.com/2012/05/27/shame-in-chicago/
From the above.
Instead, it was the US which imposed a ‘condition’ for Pakistan’s participation: prior acceptance that the supply routes to Afghanistan be reopened. Following a hasty meeting, the cabinet announced that the decision to reopen the supply route had been taken and the president would attend the summit.

A surprise awaited at the summit. President Obama refused to meet the Pakistan president ‘one-to-one’ unless Pakistan agreed to the immediate release of all the ‘held up’ cargo at the Karachi port. To his credit, President Zardari did not yield to this crass conditionality. This public insult was inflicted not only on the person of the president but the entire Pakistani nation.

How can this insulting and dismissive American posture be explained?
I have to give it to the pakis.

First, to get an invite, you let GoTUS think it has an agreement on the supply route. After you get the invite you do not keep your end of the bargain but expect the GoTUS to treat you with extreme deference. The GoTUS quickly realized the paki game and reversed course as far as possible. The paki's feign surprise or perhaps the surprise was real. The pakis work overtime to spin this into some sort of an affront to the nation of Pakistan.

All in all must have been very enlightening for Obama and the drone blitz started.

Nothing new under the sun. I already predicted that Zardari and the Pakis would do this on May 15th.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1282852

BRF ahead of the curve as usual

.

Charlie · Post by **Charlie** » 07 Jun 2012 10:29

Aditya_V wrote: So India now joins South Korea in copying TSP Policies and does better than it. Heh Heh

Lol. So we will see a deluge of articles at PakTeaHouse, Tribune et al on how Pakistan was land of honey, model for other countries in 1990's which just missed the bus to its rightful place as the only developed Muslim Country.

Imagine Pakis selling "Made in Pakistan" - Smart Phones and cars like South Korea.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 07 Jun 2012 11:17

Exclusive: Drones "inhumane", dead al Qaeda man's family says

"The United States talks human rights and freedoms for all, but the method they used to kill him is savage," Abu Bakr al-Qayed, brother of al-Libi, told Reuters on Wednesday in a telephone interview.

"The way the Americans killed him is heinous and inhumane," he said, speaking from the town of Wadi Otba, south of the Libyan capital. "We are in the 21st century and they claim to be civilized and this is how they take out people."

"Regardless of my brother's ideology, or beliefs, he was a human being and at the end of the day deserves humane treatment," he said.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 07 Jun 2012 11:24

Pentagon Chief Admits U.S. Is at War in Pakistan

“We are fighting a war in the FATA, we are fighting a war against terrorism,” said Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Wednesday, referring to the tribal areas of Pakistan that the U.S. has spent three years bombing heavily. Was that so hard to admit?

For years, it has been. Neither the Bush nor Obama administration has been forthright about the starkest fact of the recent war on terrorism: most of it takes place in western Pakistan. As CIA director and now Pentagon chief, Panetta has been one of the key architects of the accelerated drone-and-commando war the U.S. wages there in what amounts to an open secret. In 2009, the critical year in that acceleration, Danger Room boss Noah Shachtman started pressing the Obama administration for disclosure about a war the U.S. waged in all but name.

It may be late, but at least now it’s happened. The day after the U.S. claimed that its latest drone strike in tribal Pakistan killed al-Qaida’s second in command, Abu Yahya al-Libi, Panetta used the W-word to angrily dismiss the Pakistani government’s complaints about the U.S. infringing on its sovereignty. “We have made very clear that we are going to continue to defend ourselves,” Panetta said in New Dehli.

The war has remained undeclared for two reasons. First, it’s awkward and potentially destabilizing to say Pakistan is a U.S. ally but the U.S. has to fight a war against terrorists on its soil. Second, it’s politically perilous to ask a war-weary public to get used to fighting what’s effectively a third war in a decade, even if this one relies far more on remote controlled robots than ground troops. That’s suited the Pakistani government: it’s given the U.S. tacit support for the drone strikes and enough cynical public denunciation of them to ward off popular upheaval. It’s unknown how many civilians die in the drone strikes, but it’s undeniable — except, sometimes, by the White House — that some do.

But that’s gone out the window as U.S.-Pakistani relations have deteriorated over the past year. Pakistan kicked the U.S. out of an airbase used for the drone strikes and shut down a critical overland resupply route for the Afghanistan war. Panetta appears to be at his wits’ end. His stark admission that the U.S. is at war in Pakistan followed a Tuesday tongue bath for Pakistan’s arch-rival, India.

In case you’re wondering, there aren’t many legal implications or obligations prompted by Panetta’s admission. The 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force, the legal wellspring of the war on terrorism, clearly authorizes attacking the perpetrator organization of 9/11 unbounded by geographic limits. Besides that, the short document is vague enough to fly a Predator through. There is little upside and much risk for any politician arguing it’s time to end the 9/11 Era. To paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes, the life of the war has not been law; it has been politics.

It’s hard to imagine the reverberations Panetta’s comment will have amongst Pakistanis: polls indicate most don’t realize there’s a drone war going on at all. Americans are understandably preoccupied with domestic economic anxiety. The U.S. government, in other words, might have obscured its shadow war for nothing.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 07 Jun 2012 11:30

Pakistan critics laud Panetta's remarks on U.S. war in Pakistan

Pakistan's harshest critics in Congress are applauding Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta for finally acknowledging that America is at war within the boundaries of the nominal U.S. ally.

“I think it's helpful for us to understand and develop policies based on reality,” said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), a critic of both the Afghan and Pakistani governments, “rather than walking on eggs trying not to get some corrupt, repressive regime in Pakistan mad at us.”

Panetta made the remarks Wednesday while visiting India on the last leg of a three-nation tour of Asia. “We are fighting a war in the FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas at the border with Afghanistan],” he said. “We are fighting a war against terrorism.”

Panetta was referring to a U.S. campaign of drone strikes against Islamist militants who are based in Pakistan and launch attacks on NATO and Afghan troops in Afghanistan. The drone strikes — as well as the Osama bin Laden raid — have been one source of the rising tensions between the U.S. and Pakistan, as Islamabad has expressed anger that its sovereignty is being violated.

The U.S. has expressed its own frustrations that Pakistan is not doing more to stop the Haqqani network from launching attacks in Afghanistan.

“I think it’s part of the theater of war,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said of the FATA. “It’s a place where the enemy seeks sanctuary.”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, for his part didn't go as far but called the situation “unacceptable.”

“The realism of the situation is that there are the elements of the Pakistani military, specifically the ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence], that are supporting the Haqqani network that is killing Americans,” he said. “Whether you call that being at war or not, that’s up to you. I don’t view it as being at war, but I certainly view it as a situation which is not acceptable.”

The frustration over Pakistan has been keenly felt in Congress, where lawmakers have voted to slash the White House proposed aid budget for Pakistan by more than two thirds, and have placed harsh restrictions on the rest. Senate appropriators last week slashed funding by a symbolic extra $33 million in retaliation for a lengthy prison sentence against a Pakistani doctor who helped the CIA track down bin Laden.

U.S.-Pakistan relations boiled over last November when 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed by NATO troops on the Afghan-Pakistan border, which Pakistan responded by shutting down NATO supply lines to Afghanistan. Negotiations are ongoing to re-open them but have so far been unsuccessful.

Rohrabacher, who has been among the most vocal Pakistan critics in Congress, said it would be more accurate to say the U.S. is at war with, not in, Pakistan, based on what he said was evidence of continued support for radical Islamists who target American troops.

He added that instead of further burdening a U.S. public already weary from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the acknowledgment of a third war would in fact make it easier for the U.S. to extricate itself from the area.

“We are now engaged in mission impossible in Afghanistan,” he said. “As long as we don't recognize the Pakistanis as actually being engaged in that war against us, we cannot successfully terminate that conflict.”

Instead, he said, “we should continue hitting the leadership of the terrorist networks until the minute that we get out of Afghanistan and Pakistan and then wave to them goodbye.”

Others played down Panetta's comments.

Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said that the remarks were merely stating that the U.S. is at war with the Haqqani network.

“They’re at war with us and that makes us at war with them,” Levin said. “That doesn’t make us at war with Pakistan — it makes us at war with a group that’s at war with us.”

Panetta defended U.S. drone strikes in his remarks in India, which he gave two days after a drone attack killed in Pakistan territory killed the al Qaeda's No. 2.

"This about our sovereignty as well," Panetta said, according to the Wall Street Journal. "We have made very clear that we are going to continue to defend ourselves."
Graham suggested that Panetta may have in fact been signaling that the U.S. will continue its campaign of drone strikes against targets in Pakistan after U.S. troops withdraw from Afghanistan in 2014.

“In the enduring strategic partnership agreement, when you talk about not being able to use Afghanistan to launch attacks against third countries without permission from the Afghan government, everyone understands that the attacks in the tribal region are not an attack against Pakistan, but against terrorist organizations that are killing American soldiers and Afghans,” Graham said.

“I think he’s planting a flag that we will continue operations in the tribal regions because it’s part of the war in Afghanistan."

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 07 Jun 2012 11:58

Many moons back, I think in 2010 or so, G Parthasarathy predicted that US-Pak relationship will nosedive in 2012 timeframe and US will carpet bomb Pakistan in the 2013/2014 timeframe because US Pakistan relationship was untenable and US had to do something drastic for a honorable exit from Afghanistan. He was confident about it and said it with his trademark half smile.

You have to admire the man.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 07 Jun 2012 12:08

Anujan wrote:Many moons back, I think in 2010 or so, G Parthasarathy predicted that US-Pak relationship will nosedive in 2012 timeframe and US will carpet bomb Pakistan in the 2013/2014 timeframe because US Pakistan relationship was untenable and US had to do something drastic for a honorable exit from Afghanistan. He was confident about it and said it with his trademark half smile.

You have to admire the man.

link please

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 07 Jun 2012 12:10

Anujan wrote: You have to admire the man.

That I do, with a feeling approaching "starry eyed teenage girl" fandom. Irrespective of whether he way able to make this one specific call or not.

But man, this was a amazing foresight, even by his own standards. How in the hells name did he get the timelines so right?

Kanishka · Post by **Kanishka** » 07 Jun 2012 12:13

New US leverage seen in negotiations with Pakistan over NATO supply route

The U.S. is trying to break deadlocked talks with Pakistan over reopening a route for NATO troop supplies into Afghanistan — a deal that has proven elusive due to Islamabad’s demands for more money and Washington’s refusal to apologize for accidentally killing Pakistani forces.

Now the U.S. may have a little more leverage on its side, thanks to an agreement struck with some Central Asian countries to carry NATO equipment out through their territory. Before this week’s agreement, Pakistan provided the only available land route to pull out gear.

Peter Lavoy, a senior Defense Department official, is expected in Islamabad at the end of the week to try to resolve the current dispute.

Since then, the coalition compensated by using a longer, more costly route that runs through northern Afghanistan, Central Asia and Russia. This alternative route was only available to ship supplies into Afghanistan until Monday, when Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan agreed to allow the coalition to withdraw equipment as well. NATO already has an agreement with Russia for the withdrawal of material.

Monday’s deal means that the coalition will be able to ship back to Europe tens of thousands of vehicles, containers and other items as it seeks to withdraw most combat forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

“I think this will be an advantage for the U.S. and leverage over Pakistan, especially against those who said the U.S. was dependent and had no other choice,” said Pakistani defense analyst Hasan-Askari Rizvi. “I think greater realism will dawn on Pakistani policymakers that the U.S. has shown it can use the northern channel, although it will be expensive and take more time.”

It’s not exactly clear how much more expensive the northern route is compared to the one that was previously used via the Pakistani port of Karachi.

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Allen, said recently that the northern supply line through Central Asia was twice as expensive as the one through Pakistan. But Pentagon figures obtained by The Associated Press in mid-January indicated the U.S. was paying six times as much to use the northern route.

Before Pakistan closed the southern route because of the November attack, it was charging $250 per truck. Now it is demanding $5,000 per truck, while the U.S. has countered with an offer of $500.

“If most of the weapons systems and equipment ends up being transported out through the northern route, it means Pakistan would be losing out on a great opportunity,” said Talat Masood, a Pakistani defense analyst and retired army general. “It would be losing out both in terms of its economy and its relations with NATO.”

partha · Post by **partha** » 07 Jun 2012 12:17

A poll on etribune website:

Panetta says the September 11 perpetrators are in Pakistan’s tribal areas. Do you agree?

No. I don't agree. The perpetrators are not in tribal areas. They are in urban areas of Abbottabad, Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Karachi, Lahore and other cities.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 07 Jun 2012 12:19

Anujan wrote:Many moons back, I think in 2010 or so, G Parthasarathy predicted that US-Pak relationship will nosedive in 2012 timeframe and US will carpet bomb Pakistan in the 2013/2014 timeframe because US Pakistan relationship was untenable and US had to do something drastic for a honorable exit from Afghanistan. He was confident about it and said it with his trademark half smile.

You have to admire the man.

His article from yesterdin.
Pak in a spot over Afghanistan

Even American journalists and academics, who have for years been apologists for Pakistan's military, now fret and fume at the very mention of the country's name. It is a pity that it was the affable President Zardari, and not the crusty and jihad-oriented General Ashfaq Kayani, who was the Pakistani recipient of this American dressing-down.

Choices for pakistan

Pakistan has two alternatives. The first is to join the international community and regional powers in building a stable and self-reliant Afghanistan, through regional trade, oil and gas pipelines, and development of Afghanistan's vast resources of gold, copper, lithium, coal and iron ore.

India and China are already investing in resources such as iron ore, coal and copper and in oil exploration and steel. Or else, General Kayani can continue on the present path of jihad and “strategic depth,” unleashing more destruction and misery on the hapless Afghans and Pakistanis.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 07 Jun 2012 12:35

Zia era photo. hopefully Pakistan returns to such heights of purity.

partha · Post by **partha** » 07 Jun 2012 12:38

http://dawn.com/2012/06/07/film-tackles ... -conflict/

Zinda Bhaag (Escape Alive) revolves around the youth and their urge to find short cuts to life abroad. Farjad Nabi, Meenu Gaur and Mazhar Zaidi are the people behind the latest venture which is in its post-production phase. Dawn.com talks to the trio to know more about activities of Zinda Bhaag.

Do you think the new breed of filmmakers are recreating our long lost cinema or following Bollywood?

It is the other way around, the industry which is called ‘Bollywood’ has at its heart a style and form of filmmaking that is shared by the entire region of South Asia.

So there you go. Slowly a narrative is being pushed. Bollywood = South Asian film industry. Next up: "Bombay" has at its heart a culture and tradition that is shared by the entire region of South Asia. "Bombay" is as much a Pakistani city as an Indian city. Remember how Adnan Sami claimed on national television that he is a proud Mumbaikar?

Charlie · Post by **Charlie** » 07 Jun 2012 12:42

NYTimes: Another calculated slap on Paki H&D

Mr. Panetta’s remarks on Wednesday, delivered during a question-and-answer session following a speech he gave here at the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, demonstrate yet again how strained the relationship between Islamabad and Washington has become.

Mr. Panetta at the India Gate war memorial, where he took part in a wreath-laying ceremony.
He chuckled along with his audience about Pakistan’s lack of warning before the United States killed Osama bin Laden in a raid last year near a huge Pakistani Army base. “They didn’t know about our operation,” Mr. Panetta said to laughter. “That was the whole idea.”

Joking with a group of high-level Indians about a raid that has been keenly embarrassing to Pakistani military leaders is not likely to be received warmly in Islamabad. But Mr. Panetta made clear that the United States and India both have troubled relationships with Pakistan.

“Just as India views the relationship with Pakistan as complicated, so do we,” Mr. Panetta said. “And it is.”

India and Pakistan have fought three wars and still have a tense face-off over disputed boundaries. That Mr. Panetta would compare the American relationship with Pakistan with that of India’s may represent a new low in the administration’s assessment of its ties with Pakistan.