Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - July 07, 2009

archan · Post by **archan** » 13 Sep 2009 19:35

^^US funds were diverted to strengthen defence against India: Musharraf

Musharraf admitted that he had violated rules governing the use of the military aid, and justified his actions by saying he had "acted in the best interest of Pakistan."

I suppose now, making this disclosure which could hamper future aid from the US is also in the "best interest of Pakistan."

archan · Post by **archan** » 13 Sep 2009 19:39

arun wrote: Au contraire, it is neither :

Is it Af-Pak? Is it Pak-Af? It's a Fak-Ap!

Times of India

Which BRFite coined this some months ago? did ToI just copy it...

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 13 Sep 2009 19:50

ToI copied it

.... cannot recollect the poster's name.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 13 Sep 2009 19:58

Pakistan Taliban chief in Swat surrounded - minister

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - The senior Taliban leader in northwestern Pakistan's Swat Valley has been surrounded and will be captured, Interior Minister Rehman Malik said on Sunday, adding the back of the Taliban insurgency had been broken.

Pakistani Taliban advances and attacks early this year raised fears for nuclear-armed Pakistan's stability but the Islamist militants have suffered a series of setbacks in recent weeks including the killing of their overall leader.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 13 Sep 2009 20:01

Small IED mubarak onree.
Attack on FC convoy kills 2 officials in Khyber Agency

PESHAWAR: Two officials were martyred in remote control bomb attack on an FC convoy in Khyber Agency while two suspected hideouts were destroyed and three militants were killed in the Forces’ counter shelling.

An FC convoy was moving towards Jamrud in tehsil Bara of Khyber Agency when it was attacked through a remote control bomb at Mandaks.

Three vehicles were destroyed while two FC officials were killed on the spot and four seriously wounded.

Two suspects were arrested during a search operation in the area.

Meanwhile, firing was also made at the FC fort by the extremists from nearby mountain.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 13 Sep 2009 20:13

FC as usual being used for cleaning musharrafs.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 13 Sep 2009 20:59

Musharraf and the pak fauj can rest easy that any gloating on the subject of them having diverted funds to fighting a war with India will NOT result in reduction of aid for Pakistan / Pak Fauj. I think this fact is very clear by now.
The Pak Fauj is as involved with 911 as the Al Qaida / OBL were. The US knows this. Yet pakistan is funded and supported and kept alive.

Indo-US relations are important to the US, but sitting in afghanistan with a leg into central asia, preventing chinese and russian influence from unduly increasing in that area are most important.

When Pakistan gloats that they are strategically located, they are referring to the fact, that the US has a pressing need to be in afghanistan, and with an Iran hostile to the US, pakistan is the only land route to the afghan bases and thereby to CAR. Also pakistan recognizes that any pipeline to supply India or China from the sea, will have to pass via pakistan.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 13 Sep 2009 21:36

Gagan wrote: Indo-US relations are important to the US, but sitting in afghanistan with a leg into central asia, preventing chinese and russian influence from unduly increasing in that area are most important.

I have asked these question many times saar, but it gets ignored or straight answers haven't been forthcoming except abstract statements like your above:

1) Why are Indo-US relations important to US?
2) What is it that us SDREs have that US wants badly?
3) More importantly, what leverage do us SDREs have over US to prevent the kind of arms transfers that have been taking place to TSP?
4) Is it not the case that US is getting everything it wants from India at the moment despite its current abhorrent Indian containment policy of using TSP to throttle India's ambitions?
5) What are the incentives for US to change track to be more sensitive to India's security concerns visa vi TSP & China?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 13 Sep 2009 21:40

Gagan wrote:Musharraf and the pak fauj can rest easy that any gloating on the subject of them having diverted funds to fighting a war with India will NOT result in reduction of aid for Pakistan / Pak Fauj. I think this fact is very clear by now.
The Pak Fauj is as involved with 911 as the Al Qaida / OBL were. The US knows this. Yet pakistan is funded and supported and kept alive.

Indo-US relations are important to the US, but sitting in afghanistan with a leg into central asia, preventing chinese and russian influence from unduly increasing in that area are most important.

When Pakistan gloats that they are strategically located, they are referring to the fact, that the US has a pressing need to be in afghanistan, and with an Iran hostile to the US, pakistan is the only land route to the afghan bases and thereby to CAR. Also pakistan recognizes that any pipeline to supply India or China from the sea, will have to pass via pakistan.

Read the interview of Jinnah in 1948 where he says that US needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs India and cites the Soviet expansion. Now they have turned it around and say that it is US interest to keep supporting Pakistan. US has interest in CAS, ME etc. and this is used as a reason for support with 911/terrorist/Taliban as other side reason.
What is not even mention is that one of the main reason for support is to keep a hedge against India and also change Indian state policy and behavior

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 13 Sep 2009 21:44

I think that the US does not get all that it wants from India. Indian refusal to agree results in the bolstering of Pakistan. Even if India were to become a munna or even a formal NATO member, this bolstering of pakistan will NOT end.
Case in point: GB is the munna-est of all munnas, it is the blood brother with the umbilical cord still intact with massa. Now in this context there is still the anomaly of the US's relations with the Irish liberation movement / IRA.

Can't be explained? How can we hope to explain away the Indo- US-pak triangle then. It is just the way superpowers are.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 13 Sep 2009 21:51

Acharya wrote:
Gagan wrote:Musharraf and the pak fauj can rest easy that any gloating on the subject of them having diverted funds to fighting a war with India will NOT result in reduction of aid for Pakistan / Pak Fauj. I think this fact is very clear by now.
The Pak Fauj is as involved with 911 as the Al Qaida / OBL were. The US knows this. Yet pakistan is funded and supported and kept alive.

Indo-US relations are important to the US, but sitting in afghanistan with a leg into central asia, preventing chinese and russian influence from unduly increasing in that area are most important.

When Pakistan gloats that they are strategically located, they are referring to the fact, that the US has a pressing need to be in afghanistan, and with an Iran hostile to the US, pakistan is the only land route to the afghan bases and thereby to CAR. Also pakistan recognizes that any pipeline to supply India or China from the sea, will have to pass via pakistan.
Read the interview of Jinnah in 1948 where he says that US needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs India and cites the Soviet expansion. Now they have turned it around and say that it is US interest to keep supporting Pakistan. US has interest in CAS, ME etc. and this is used as a reason for support with 911/terrorist/Taliban as other side reason.
What is not even mention is that one of the main reason for support is to keep a hedge against India and also change Indian state policy and behavior

I will give more credit to US than that. US is not a supepower for nothing. Realpolitick based on sohpisticated cost/benefit analysis is what drives them. Thus, US knows TSP monkeys are only obsessed with India, and the least cost, path of least resistence, is to keep them happy. Only when a cost is imposed on them (USA) will they change rack. But with us SDREs desperately trying to be USA's munna, and showing no b@lls, no cojones, in taking TSP on, where is the need for USA to change track. Should India impose a price, or some other change in circumstance be brought about, Islamabad will be reduced to a parking lot, strategic location or not, TSP boasting notwithstanding. And TSP is doing just fine at the moment focusing on SDREs alone like a laser beam.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 13 Sep 2009 22:00

archan wrote:^^US funds were diverted to strengthen defence against India: Musharraf
Musharraf admitted that he had violated rules governing the use of the military aid, and justified his actions by saying he had "acted in the best interest of Pakistan."
I suppose now, making this disclosure which could hamper future aid from the US is also in the "best interest of Pakistan."

Do you seriously think that us going to happen? If that had to happen , it would have happened by now

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 13 Sep 2009 22:56

archan wrote:^^US funds were diverted to strengthen defence against India: Musharraf
Musharraf admitted that he had violated rules governing the use of the military aid, and justified his actions by saying he had "acted in the best interest of Pakistan."
I suppose now, making this disclosure which could hamper future aid from the US is also in the "best interest of Pakistan."

Mushy is a clever one. Consider this: One more statement from him "We diverted funds to counter India, with US approval" will set the fox among the pigeons. So I think that his statement was made with one of two objectives:

1. He has kissed all political ambitions goodbye and is making life more difficult for the civvies to get baksheesh
2. He is attempting to make a foray into Pakistani politics (November, IIRC after the 2 year ban is gone) and is making noises starting now, to portray himself as a great "Patriot" (conveniently forgetting the coup). *But his main backer is not the US anymore*.

Mushy usually gives 400 press conferences and shoots his mouth out, if he is aiming to do something major: Conduct a referendum, dismiss the judges or get more baksheesh. This time around, it could be because he wants to get into politics.

If he does, it would be a good piskology exercise for all of us. I personally thought that Mushy was clinging on to the presidency and extending his COAS tenure 400% to prevent a lambost. Seems he is genuinely power-crazy.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 13 Sep 2009 23:00

Al-Qaeda allies build huge Pakistan base

Jaish-e-Mohammad ("army of Mohammad"), which is linked to a series of atrocities including an attack on the Indian parliament and the beheading of the American journalist Daniel Pearl, has walled off a 4.5 acre compound just outside the town of Bahawalpur.

Pakistani authorities have turned a blind eye to the new base, in the far south of Punjab province, even though it is believed to have been built to serve as a radical madrassah - Islamic school - or some kind of training camp.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 14 Sep 2009 00:12

A foreign policy for wimps ---- Tavleen Singh

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 14 Sep 2009 04:50

Jinnah’s nightmare ---- Syed Mansoor Hussain

Simply put, no Pakistan, no Taliban; no Taliban, no Al Qaeda in Afghanistan; no Al Qaeda, no terrorist attack on the US; no attacks on the US then obviously no invasion of Afghanistan. And arguably, then, no terrorism in Pakistan: no assassination of Benazir Bhutto. That of course means no presidency for Mr Zardari. And yes, I wouldn’t be sitting here writing this article either.

I really wish Jinnah had lived for a few more years and put the country on the right path. But had he lived longer, he would probably have died of a broken heart rather than of tuberculosis.

Negative side of hating America

Mr Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, has written to the Foreign Office and the ISI complaining that journalistic and institutional visas to Americans were being denied through the device of withholding “clearance”. In an understatement, the ambassador added that this could “damage” Pakistan’s image. The Foreign Office, of course, can hardly help, given its low profile in such matters, but the ISI must give it serious thought.

The complaint also mentioned “instances where American institutions or journalists were denied visas, allegedly harassed or put under intelligence surveillance”. Islamabad refused clearance to a renewal of visa to the chief of Asia Foundation, the director of the International Republican Institute and NBC journalist Richard Engel. Newsweek photographer Kate Brooks was given special treatment: her visa was cancelled.

There is apparently a “black list” maintained in Islamabad which prevents the issuance of clearance. The ambassador wants to be made privy to this list so that he can know from Islamabad the nature and extent of threat Pakistan is supposed to be feeling from certain categories of American visitors. Clearly, there is a gap of shared information between the embassy in Washington and the security agencies in Pakistan that vet all visa requests.

The ISI is a greatly improved institution under General Ahmad Shuja Pasha but its past keeps hitting it in the face in the shape of its retired personnel like Khalid Khwaja and others who spew hatred against America and worsen the state of objective consciousness in the country. That is why most TV channels ended up producing a patently false picture of what happened after 9/11 on the anniversary of the shocking event.

We hope the visas are not being blocked because of the hatred of America that certain officers feel. Worse still, we hope that this is not happening because of incoherence of policy or lack thereof. The blocking of visas will not benefit Pakistan. It will isolate Pakistan and blacken its image at a time when it is emerging from bad times.

Denying visas to US journalists hurting Pakistan: Haqqani

Diplomatic circles, however, confirmed that Pakistan's embassy in Washington was under tremendous pressure, for quite some time, from US media organizations over the issue of alleged harassment of US journalists at the hands of Pakistani security officials.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 14 Sep 2009 07:58

krishnan wrote:
archan wrote:^^US funds were diverted to strengthen defence against India: Musharraf
I suppose now, making this disclosure which could hamper future aid from the US is also in the "best interest of Pakistan."
Do you seriously think that us going to happen? If that had to happen , it would have happened by now

Krishnan is right. The US has known all along why Pakistan sought funds and arms from them, not really to fight the Commies in the 50s and 60s. Not really to fight the terrorists in the first decade of the twenty first century. Yet, the US supplies TSP with whatever weapons and cash.

The US ambassador, James Langley, said in 1957, (sic) “The present military program is a hoax, the hoax being that it is related to the Soviet threat”. As he rightly said, Pakistan never used the arms against the Commies. It didn't get involved in Vietnam, Laos, Korea etc. OTOH, it even struck up a close relationship with Communist China.

The United States has made available to Pakistan a wide variety of top-of-the-line military equipment hitherto considered politically sensitive. Air force systems delivered or in the pipeline include 36 F-16 C/D block 50/52 fighter aircraft, the most modern version currently flown by the U.S. Air Force; a program to modernize all 34 of Pakistan’s existing F-16 fleet to the same standard; 500 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM)—the largest single international AMRAAM purchase in the history of the program; 200 AIM-9M Sidewinder missiles; and six C-130E transport aircraft. Navy systems delivered or in the pipeline include eight P-3C Orion maritime surveillance aircraft; a program to modernize Pakistan’s existing P-3 fleet; Harpoon block 2 missiles, and three additional P-3 aircraft that will be configured with the E-2C HAWKEYE airborne early warning electronics suite. Army equipment delivered or in the pipeline includes 26 Bell 412 helicopters; 20 AH-1F Cobra attack helicopters and modernization of Pakistan’s existing Cobra fleet, Harris high frequency radios, TOW-2A anti-tank missiles, and 115 M-109A5 howitzers.[7] To manage these programs the embassy security assistance office, the Office of the Defense Representative, Pakistan (ODRP) has expanded from a small office of four officers and three foreign nationals headed by a colonel in 2001, to a complex organization of approximately 40 military personnel headed by a major general, the first time since the 1960s that an officer in that grade has been posted in Pakistan.
link

archan · Post by **archan** » 14 Sep 2009 08:05

The question is for the Indian policy makers. Do they think the increase (unchecked) in military threat is from both our (direct) enemies in tandem is of less importance than economic growth? if yes, one hopes their calculations are right. If not, unfortunately, nations with such policy makers are seldom on the winning side.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 14 Sep 2009 08:12

It would appear that the current dispensation in washington will be more receptive to india's concerns of supplying pakistan in a manner that threatens india.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 14 Sep 2009 08:18

To confirm the above posts, here is the conclusion section of "The US Congress and the 1971 Crisis in East Pakistan" by P.V. Rao, International Studies 2006; 43; 73
http://isq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/43/1/73

Congressional interest in Pakistan's civil war worked as a limiting factor on the Nixon Administration's policy responses to developments during the 1971 crisis in the Indian subcontinent. Official failure to satisfy the legislature with credible information, compounded by leaks and lies, dragged the government more seriously into a worsening situation in East Pakistan. A barrage of criticism, backed by legislative acts and inquiries, circumscribed the Administration's ability to execute effectively its chosen policy line for the subcontinent. The government was restrained from consummating military commitments to its favoured ally in South Asia as it was forced to impose an official lid on promises of aid but not before November when the conflict in East Pakistan was rapidly snowballing into a war between the regional rivals. The arms cuts, however, had no material impact on the US-Pakistan military relationship. The two frigates reached their destination despite public and Congressional outcry and DOD agencies continued with their military supplies of one kind or another until November. The arms suspension forced by the Congress was no more than moral posturing, as the Administration found its ways of bypassing the Congressional ban. Nonetheless, the Congress remained watchful to deter backdoor funnelling of banned arms as Kissinger ruefully admitted later that, if US arms were not banned to Pakistan, "this problem [of supplying via third parties] wouldn't have arisen" (Gupta, 1972: 149).

Congressional pressure also compelled the Nixon Administration to shift its policy focus to humanitarian assistance to refugees in East Pakistan and India in order to circumvent criticism on its "massive inaction". India, the overburdened host of surging refugees, drew Presidential attention to a sharing of the costs. However, Nixon's claim that the $70 million relief aid to India was more than the contribution by all the countries in the world put together was sheer exaggeration as it was only half of the UN contribution. However, Nixon was not constrained by the Congressional prohibition of economic assistance to Pakistan as the concerned legislation did not become operational until Nixon signed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1971 on 7 February 1972. Hardly a week later, aid was officially restored on 16 February with the President authorizing necessary certification following the end of the war and the return of refugees to Bangladesh.

Thus the East Pakistan crisis reflected the strength as well as the limitation of the US Congress. The suspension of arms and aid to Pakistan reflected its punitive capacity but that Islamabad continued to get the prohibited material pointed to its limitations. Nevertheless, by challenging the Administration on the issue, along with the ongoing debate on Indo-China, the Congress could steadily assert its role as a co-determinant of American foreign policy along with the executive branch.

So all this hogwash of war on terror etc are just that, strategic imperatives mean the us will continue to do things that are against Indian interests, and so the us has to go down. War on the us till we impose a high cost on them and make them change their ways, yes, war! The disease is the US, the symptom is pakistan and china.

Some more choicest quotes:

By rejecting the Presidential request, the House had not only exercised its power of purse against a recalcitrant military regime but it had also countered the Administration's policy which believed that economic assistance to Pakistan would give the US the needed leverage for finding a political solution to the crisis. Defending this position and reacting to the Amendment, President Nixon stated:

"With regards to a problem that was addressed by the House yesterday, we do not favour the idea that the United States should cut off economic assistance to Pakistan. To do so would simply mean that the ability of the Government of Pakistan to work with the U.N, as it presently has indicated it is willing to do so in distributing the food supplies --- its ability to create some stability would be seriously jeopardized.... We are not going to engage in public pressure on the Government of Pakistan. That would be totally counterproductive. These are matters that we will discuss only in private channels (New York Times, 1971g)."

A series of Congressional initiatives including suspension of military aid in May, inquiries into arms and refugee issues and a ban on economic aid to Pakistan put the White House on the defensive which, otherwise, had no intention of forcing the military junta into a serious political dialogue with East Pakistan leaders. It needs to be mentioned here that the timing of all these was most unsuitable for the Administration which was preoccupied with the China initiative, the planned secret trip by Kissinger to Beijing (then Peaking) in July which had been brokered by Pakistan.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 14 Sep 2009 08:36

Musharraf left Pakistan under a deal: Mushahid 'Mandela' Hussain

Former president Pervez Musharraf had resigned from office and left the country under a covert deal ensuring him safe passage {He was given a tri-service guard of honour when he left thereby sending a message that the military totally supported him}, a private TV channel quoted PML-Q General Secretary Mushahid Hussain as saying on Sunday. Mushahid said he believed that Musharraf would not return to the country any time soon. He said all those demanding Musharraf’s trial under Article 6 of the constitution would be silenced once the authorities received a “phone call” from Saudi Arabia. {This is the second time within a fortnight, he has made the same shameless statement. It shows how much Paksitanis depend on thier 3½ friends. They are even proud of flaunting their abject surrender of sovereignty.}

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 14 Sep 2009 08:43

Stan_Savljevic wrote:So all this hogwash of war on terror etc are just that, strategic imperatives mean the us will continue to do things that are against Indian interests . . .

Here is what Nehru told Indian Parliament in April, 1959

India’s “greatest concern” at the supply of jet bombers and jet fighters by the United States to Pakistan had been brought to the notice of the U.S. Government on several occasions and in various ways, Prime Minister Nehru told the Rajya Sabha on April 29. Mr. Nehru said: “The fact of the U.S. Government supplying jet bombers to Pakistan has led to considerable feeling, concern and resentment in India which have progressively grown as shown in the recent Canberra incident when one of our planes was shot down by these jet planes. This fact has been brought to the notice of the U.S. Government on several occasions.” He said that the U.S. authorities in reply had repeated their earlier statements that this was no new agreement and that “ in fact they have avoided extending it.”
link

Avinash R · Post by **Avinash R** » 14 Sep 2009 09:24

Pureland is becoming more pure; Impurities flee pakistan

Video Link
http://www.timesnow.tv/videoshow/4327207.cms

Text Link
http://www.timesnow.tv/Pak-Hindus-flee- ... 327205.cms

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 14 Sep 2009 11:27

posted minus comments....
India, Pak may resume Track 2 diplomacy: Report
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article19890.ece

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Sep 2009 12:07

The US has known for decades ...and abetted Pak in misusing US aid and arms for use against India.It also turned a blind eye to Pak's acquisition of N-weapons too,knowing for decades how Pak was acquiring it.The sad fact about US pllicy is that they trust military dictatorships far more than independent domocracies,as military dictatorships can be coerced or bribed into following US foreign policy either as mute bystanders or active partners.Gen.Bandicoot's "coming out of the closet" so to speak,on his and Pak's perversion of US aid,is to build up his stature at home,that he was the "strongman" of Pak who built up its military in the "interests" of Pak,and to also send a message to the US that he will spill more beans if the current regime in Pak do not wind up their judicial proceedings against him.With powerful Saudi "protection" (for delivering N-warheads for Saudi's Chinese BMs?),Gen.Bandiccot is assured of immunity at home,as the Saudis if they want to hurt Pak,can pull the plug from under Pak's feet in many ways,stopping oil shipments,the huge amounts of aid being sent to the govt. of Pak and the mullahs of the mushrooming madrasas,plus sending back the lakhs of Pakis working in the kingdom.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 14 Sep 2009 12:16

From nightwatch

Politics. Saudi Arabian King Abdallah assured former President General Musharraf that the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, headed by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, will not seek to try him for treason. In his typical fashion of kicking a dog, Musharraf boasted that he wants to try the Superior courts of Pakistan for treason!
Somehow the open intrusion of a Saudi King into Pakistani domestic politics of an Islamic Republic seems to have generated little commentary, not to mention outrage.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 14 Sep 2009 12:31

On how LTTE, TSP, UAE & Taliban collaborated

Sri Lankan experts on the LTTE have said that the outfit had a front company in Karachi to smuggle arms, and a safe house in Peshawar to liaise with the Taliban.

According to Shanaka Jayasekara, a terrorism researcher based in Macquarie University, Australia, the LTTE’s arms procurer, Selvarasa Pathmanathan alias KP, had traveled from Bangkok to Kabul through Karachi, on May 19, 2001. He had meetings with Taliban officials on matters relating to the notorious “Sharjah Network”. The “Sharjah network” is an arms supply line run by the infamous Russian arms dealer, Victor Bout, who had operated three to four flights daily to Kabul to transport arms.

Lakbimanews quotes Jayasekara as saying that the LTTE operated a cargo company Otharad Cargo in Dubai, 17 km from the offices of the Sharjah Network.

Otharad Cargo is believed to have acquired several consignments of military hardware as part of consolidated purchase arrangements with the Taliban’s “Sharjah network”.

Jayasekara claims that information recovered from a laptop computer of an LTTE procurement agent, now in the custody of a Western country, has provided detailed information on LTTE’s activities in Pakistan.

According to Rohan Gunaratna, a Sri Lankan expert on terrorism with the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism, in Malaysia, the LTTE had links with Jehadis in the Pakistani frontier and it had a safe house in Peshawar.

Pakistani Prime Minister, Yusuf Raza Gilani, had said that the Sri Lankan President, Mahinda Rajapaksa, had told him in Libya recently, that elements in Sri Lanka were linked with terrorist events in Pakistan, including the gun attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 14 Sep 2009 12:40

Mysterey of rockets fired near Wagah border

An elected village councillor in East Punjab accused Pakistani soldiers of trying to intimidate an all-women paramilitary contingent, a first for India, which was deployed at the Wagah border on Friday.

arun · Post by **arun** » 14 Sep 2009 13:08

X Posted.

Since the commencement of the holy to Muslims month of Ramazan / Ramadan this year on August 23rd, the “Crusader Kaafirs” of the US have launched 4 separate attacks on the minority Pashtun Momin of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with not so much as a squawk from the Punjabi dominated Pakistani elite

.

I thought the IEDology of Pakistan aka Nazaria Pakistan which proclaims Pakistan as an ideological Muslim State formed to protect the Muslims of South Asia would at least demand a strangled squawk at this killing of the minority Pashtun Momin.

27 August, 2009:

US drone strike in South Waziristan kills eight

07 September 2009:

Five die in Waziristan US drone attack

08 September 2009:

Drone attack leaves 12 dead in N. Waziristan

14 September 2009:

Drone attack kills four in North Waziristan: officials

arun · Post by **arun** » 14 Sep 2009 13:11

Talk about the confused flip flops that come out of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan

.

Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in the Sunday edition of Dawn:

Pakistan ideal place for investment: Gilani

Sunday, 13 Sep, 2009 | 07:17 AM PST |

Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in the Monday edition of Daily Times

:

Monday, September 14, 2009

No investment until terrorism ends: PM

Nice to see some small degree of retribution catching up for the years of Pakistani sponsorship of terrorism around the word

.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 14 Sep 2009 14:36

archan wrote:
arun wrote: Au contraire, it is neither :

Is it Af-Pak? Is it Pak-Af? It's a Fak-Ap!

Times of India
Which BRFite coined this some months ago? did ToI just copy it...

The oldest reference on BRF, that I could find using Google, was back in April in the Af-Pak Watch thread.

milindc · Post by **milindc** » 14 Sep 2009 15:55

archan wrote:
arun wrote: Au contraire, it is neither :

Is it Af-Pak? Is it Pak-Af? It's a Fak-Ap!

Times of India
Which BRFite coined this some months ago? did ToI just copy it...

It is safe to assume that Chidanand Rajghatta lurks at BRF

vishwakarmaa · Post by **vishwakarmaa** » 14 Sep 2009 17:01

Stan_Savljevic wrote:So all this hogwash of war on terror etc are just that, strategic imperatives mean the us will continue to do things that are against Indian interests . . .

We need independent and fearless leaders. Not poodles who listen to west-aping business lobbies in India.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 14 Sep 2009 18:43

India's women troopers giving Pakistan jitters

By IANS,

New Delhi: The deployment of the all women battalion at the India-Pakistan border in Punjab, the first of its kind, seems to be giving sleepless nights to Pakistan as it has been busy running down the security initiative.

First, a news report appeared on a prominent website that called the Border Security Force (BSF) women objectionable names. This shocked the Indian defence establishment, which, however, passed it off as propaganda. The rocket firing on the border at Wagah over the weekend was given a different twist by army headquarters.

"Pakistan is heralding the coming of our all women battalion, which is another feather in the cap of India," quipped a defence official.

What news report is this referring to?

Akshut · Post by **Akshut** » 14 Sep 2009 18:54

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/zardaris ... -americans

Zardari is open about his pakiness

Zardari along with Afghan president Hamid Karzai attended a reception hosted by Senator John F. Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but showed extreme lack of etiquettes and common courtesies.

One person who was at the table where Zardari ate his lunch was shocked when a waiter presented him bread.

When offered bred at the table, without saying thanks Zardari said, "I will take it only if it is warm." He then touched the bread and after feeling it with his fingers, did not pick it up which is considered extremely rude in Western societies.

At other times he was putting his elbow on the table and cupping his chin with the back of his hands.

At another point, Zardari was seen using his fingers to pick his teeth after eating food.

True paki to represent the land of pure.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 14 Sep 2009 18:57

The report failed to mention if he appreciated the cook by burping loudly at the end of the meal or dropped atom bombs in between.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Sep 2009 18:57

Hamid Gul's ranting and raving at the "Great Satan".
('Pologies from this quote from the forum of the deaf and dumb!)

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strategic- ... istan.html

Ex-Intel officer discloses US plans for Pakistan

The US seeks to establish new military bases in Pakistan to keep the country destabilized and control its nuclear weapons, says a former head of Pakistan's intelligence service.

In an exclusive interview with Press TV on Sunday, Hamid Gul said that Washington planned to expand its embassy and increase its security guards in Pakistan.

"There are already three thousand five hundred of them [US security guards] and one thousand more are coming," Gul said.

He also noted that Americans seek to set up a large intelligence network inside Pakistan under the pretext of giving financial aid to the country.

"They [Americans] are going to set up a large intelligence network inside Pakistan. They say because we are spending money directly on projects, therefore we need the security guards and we are bringing in the contractors," said Gul.

US officials "want to go for Pakistan's nuclear assets. They are inching close to those nuclear assets day by day," he added.

When asked about Washington's long-term goal in Pakistan, the former Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) said that the United States wants to keep the country destabilized.

Washington's decision to expand its embassy in Pakistan has also rung alarm bells in China with Chinese Ambassador to Pakistan, Luo Zhaohui, expressing concern over the planned measure.

"China has concerns over the expansion of the US Embassy in Islamabad and the United States should expand its Embassy by materializing rules and regulations of Pakistan," Zhaohui said at a news conference.

AnimeshP · Post by **AnimeshP** » 14 Sep 2009 19:01

Gagan wrote:What news report is this referring to?

this one ...
Indian army to deploy prostitutes as women battalion in Held Kashmir

The Indian Army is deploying around 200 prostitutes under the cover of Border Security Force’s constables in the Indian occupied Kashmir along with the Line of Control., The Daily Mail has learnt through authoritative sources.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 14 Sep 2009 19:04

Airavat wrote:
archan wrote:Which BRFite coined this some months ago? did ToI just copy it...
The oldest reference on BRF, that I could find using Google, was back in April in the Af-Pak Watch thread.

Hmm..... I might be wrong .....I think it was Vivek_A who coined it.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Sep 2009 19:04

g.kacha wrote:
Gagan wrote:What news report is this referring to?
this one ...
Indian army to deploy prostitutes as women battalion in Held Kashmir

The Indian Army is deploying around 200 prostitutes under the cover of Border Security Force’s constables in the Indian occupied Kashmir along with the Line of Control., The Daily Mail has learnt through authoritative sources.

***WARNING***

some kind of script running on the page.