Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 2011

Nandu · Post by **Nandu** » 06 Oct 2011 23:41

Transcripts are here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... -president

Q(Matt Spetalnick): ... On the foreign policy front, do you agree with Admiral Mullen’s accusation that Pakistan’s intelligence agency has used the Haqqani network as a virtual arm? And what, if any, consequences up to and including a cut-off of aid would you be willing to consider?

Obama: ...
With respect to Pakistan, I have said that my number-one goal is to make sure that al Qaeda cannot attack the U.S. homeland and cannot affect U.S. interests around the world. And we have done an outstanding job, I think, in going after, directly, al Qaeda in this border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. We could not have been as successful as we have been without the cooperation of the Pakistan government. And so, on a whole range of issues they have been an effective partner with us.

What is also true is that our goal of being able to transition out of Afghanistan and leave a stable government behind -- one that is independent, one that is respectful of human rights, one that is democratic -- that Pakistan, I think, has been more ambivalent about some of our goals there. And I think that they have hedged their bets, in terms of what Afghanistan would look like. And part of hedging their bets is having interactions with some of the unsavory characters who they think might end up regaining power in Afghanistan after coalition forces have left.

What we’ve tried to persuade Pakistan of is that it is in their interest to have a stable Afghanistan; that they should not be feeling threatened by a stable, independent Afghanistan. We’ve tried to get conversations between Afghans and Pakistans going more effectively than they have been in the past, but we’ve still got more work to do. And there is no doubt that there is some connections that the Pakistani military and intelligence services have with certain individuals that we find troubling. And I’ve said that publicly, and I’ve said it privately to Pakistani officials as well.

They see their security interests threatened by an independent Afghanistan in part because they think it will ally itself to India, and Pakistan still considers India their mortal enemy. Part of what we want to do is actually get Pakistan to realize that a peaceful approach towards India would be in everybody’s interests, and would help Pakistan actually develop, because one of the biggest problems we have in Pakistan right now is poverty, illiteracy, a lack of development, civil institutions that aren’t strong enough to deliver for the Pakistani people. And in that environment you’ve seen extremism grow. You’ve seen militancy grow that doesn’t just threaten our efforts in Afghanistan but also threatens the Pakistani government and the Pakistani people as well. So trying to get that reorientation is something that we’re continuing to work on; it’s not easy.

Q I’m sorry, sir -- consequences of being (inaudible)?

THE PRESIDENT: We will constantly evaluate our relationship with Pakistan based on, is, overall, this helping to protect Americans and our interests. We have a great desire to help the Pakistani people strengthen their own society and their own government. And so I’d be hesitant to punish aid for flood victims in Pakistan because of poor decisions by their intelligence services. But there is no doubt that we’re not going to feel comfortable with a long-term strategic relationship with Pakistan if we don’t think that they’re mindful of our interest as well.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Oct 2011 23:51

JEM and others, read David Ignatius novel "Bloodmoney"

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 07 Oct 2011 00:52

Already have. Summer. Not bad. Implausible storyline, but the details are probably on the money.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 07 Oct 2011 01:00

From Pak madrassa student arrested on charges of blasphemy

was disposing of the pages by burning them on Monday when he was seen by some people, who severely tortured him and got a case of blasphemy registered
...
and alerted the public
...
The court remanded him to judicial custody and sent him to Jhelum prison.

So the public is somehow not exactly too public even for madrassa!?! Uparawaala deta he to chhappar faadke the public deta he!

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 07 Oct 2011 01:02

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/doctor-he ... d=14683750

The Pakistani commission probing the U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May has recommended that a doctor who helped the CIA find the al Qaeda leader be tried for treason.

Dr. Shakil Afridi allegedly conducted a fake vaccine program on behalf of U.S. intelligence, going to door-to-door in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where bin Laden lived in a high-walled compound, in hopes of collecting DNA samples. The New York Times reported in July that an American official said Afridi was able to get access to the bin Laden family's compound, but did not get DNA samples from bin Laden family members and did not see the al Qaeda leader.

Narad · Post by **Narad** » 07 Oct 2011 01:06

So as per paki laWhoree logic, it is a high treason to help find and eliminate the most dreaded terrorist on the planet. Such insufferable bhench**s these poakis are.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Oct 2011 01:09

Narad,
But they do marry their cousins on the father's side which makes them what you call!

Narad · Post by **Narad** » 07 Oct 2011 01:12

ramana wrote:Narad,
But they do marry their cousins on the father's side which makes them what you call!

literally saar

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Oct 2011 01:23

parsuram wrote:<SNIP> I must say Bharat certainly enjoys a charmed life. <SNIP>

That Sir, could be attributed to the sons and daughters of India who have worked tiredlessly to enusre we breathe a free air. Somehow, we (people on BRF) are quick to blame people who run the country with them about to sell-out at every instance. It is time we gave them dues.

That aside - IMO, the external forces have always gamed on politicos pussy-footing and wleting under pressure and hence, dreams of Punjab and kashmir with tsp. I don't think they ever realized the capability of the indian armed forces and CMPF and their ability to adapt. Look at kasmhir - a state sponsored inurgency has been throtelled. RR battalions were a masterstroke. So much for geniuses at foggy bottom.

r_subramanian · Post by **r_subramanian** » 07 Oct 2011 01:24

God's soldiers: Pakistan army's ideology
Praveen Swami's article in the Hindu.
He cites from different editions of Pak Army's green book. Here is one quote.

In 2008, for example, Brigadier Waqar Hassan Khan argued in the Green Book that "the superpower's entry into [the] Middle-East and West Asia [sic] was not possible without a Pearl Harbour; 9/11 was either created or supported to be labelled as the second Pearl Harbour."
"Now," he asserted, "it has come in the open that people have been missing the jungle for a tree; the so-called Pakistani Taliban was a bogey created by RAW, MOSSAD, and probably the U.S.-led coalition to keep the Durand Line on fire and destabilise Pakistan internally to achieve the ultimate objective of undermining the only nuclear Islamic state on this earth."

I was under the impression that the rant aginst U.S., RAW and MOSSAD was just for public consumption. I did not know that the Pak Army really believed in this bunkum!
PS's conclusion.

Insanity, Albert Einstein is believed to have said, consisted of doing the same things again and again, but expecting different results. The Pakistan army's jihadist commitment is not merely a tactical tool to project influence or win legitimacy: it is, instead, the paradigm through which the institution comprehends the world and seeks to shape it. The jihadists the U.S. hopes to bribe and cajole the Pakistan army to abandon are in fact soldiers of the nation the institution seeks to build - a dystopia that dollars, ironically enough, will continue to underwrite.

Please read the article.
link

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 07 Oct 2011 01:48

Al-Qaida calls on Ahmadinejad to end 9/11 conspiracy theories

it was necessary for the Iranians to discredit 9/11 and what better way to do so? Conspiracy theories."
...
Al-Qaida also accused Iran of hypocrisy over its "anti-Americanism".

Al Qeda ie pak sponsored terrorists are therefore truly anti-american. All the while americans looked the other way.

RCase · Post by **RCase** » 07 Oct 2011 02:22

Dilbu wrote:
But he did not mince words in speaking about the country's two-faced military who are now regarded in some circles as terrorists in uniform.
The truth is finally out for everyone to see. Satyamev jayate!

The various definitions are hurting my head ...

There are:
plain old uniformed jernails (are there any left?)
uniformed jernails who are terrorist sympathisers
uniformed jernails who are terrorists
non-uniformed jernails who are jihadis (like Hamid Gul types)
non-uniformed jernails who are not jihadis (a rarity)
foot soldiers in uniform (of course terrorist sympathisers)
foot soldiers not in uniform (47, 65, Kargil type mujahids)
foot soldiers in uniform for shadat (FC, Baloch, Shia etc.)
state actors who have sympathies
state actors who have sensitivities
state actors who are jihadis
non-state actors in uniform
non-state actors not in uniform

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 07 Oct 2011 02:26

vishvak wrote:Al-Qaida calls on Ahmadinejad to end 9/11 conspiracy theories

Al Qeda ie pak sponsored terrorists are therefore truly anti-american. All the while americans looked the other way.

^^

Iran and the Shi’a in general do not want to give Al Qaeda credit for the greatest and biggest operation ever committed against America because this would expose their lip-service jihad against the Great Satan.

I always wonder ... can a detente be engineered between Iran and USA(+ israel) and subsequently an "opening up", ala kissinger engineered one with PRC ??
It will lessen the risk of jihadi hiccups to India's rise in the shorterm, open up Iran's vast energy fields to power the region's (in effect India's) economic rise.

The resultant financial and military power in Iran's hands will give pak+saudia a lasting headache.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Oct 2011 02:33

Rcase, You need to study ontology and apply it to TSP society to get all the morphings.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 07 Oct 2011 03:28

r_subramanian wrote:God's soldiers: Pakistan army's ideology
Praveen Swami's article in the Hindu. Please read the article.
link

The overarching strategic lesson of the 2001-2002 crisis, wrote Brigadier Muhammad Zia, was clear: the West had come to the determination that “a nuclear (and Muslim) Pakistan has to be kept in control, lest it leads the Islamic world towards the formation of a new and powerful economic and military bloc in competition with or antagonistic to the western alliance.”

This one little piece is enough to tell the world about the sheer aggrandisation of the self in the porki mind. "I am the centre of the world and everyone owes us to keep it in equillibrium" mindset seems to be so ingrained in their hamburgers that even utter defeats like 71/99 have no effect. "Give peace a chance,......" by enqyoob was truly correct!

RCase · Post by **RCase** » 07 Oct 2011 03:43

ramana wrote:Rcase, You need to study ontology and apply it to TSP society to get all the morphings.

Ramanaji - From first principles, TSP society is Terrorists, Simple and Plain; despite all the word jugglery and morphing.

parsuram · Post by **parsuram** » 07 Oct 2011 03:50

lilo: Re: The Khalistan papers - There is no knowing what the Khalis were willing to do at the esteemed institute, and I would not hazard a guess, considering the mental status of some of the khalis I met at the time. Besides, the paki is known to swallow "Kashmir" whole, given any opportunity at playing "fantasy kashmir". And maps are a particular weakness of the paki - if you recall the ones that got the whole mess started by some proto paki lunatic at oxford or cambridge - rehmat ali, I think - but easy to forget.

rohitvats: Yes, I know, have many in my family that have spent a lot of time in uniform in J&K, but it is always prudent to acknowledge the almighty.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 07 Oct 2011 04:29

Braless Pakistan
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 36046.html

The brazen strikes against the Hazara follow on the heels of the bombing of a Shiite mosque and a suicide attack on a Shiite procession in recent months. Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, a Sunni sectarian group allied with the Taliban, is thought to be involved in some of them.
Though the rivalry between Sunni and Shiites rests on a centuries-old theological debate within Islam, the Sunni majority has historically lived in peace with Pakistan's 30 million Shiites. As columnist Sadanand Dhume wrote on these pages last month, some of the country's most prominent leaders since 1947 have hailed from Shiite communities. Yet Sunni fundamentalists who find Shiite practices and observances heretical have these communities suddenly scared.Pakistan's Sunni radicals are the real minority in Pakistan. But they have managed to terrorize the rest of the country because of the culture of lawlessness and impunity. Police promised a crackdown on Sunni militants Wednesday. But with the writ of the state eroding, Pakistanis are skeptical. This week, the judge who passed a death sentence on the assassin of liberal politician Salman Taseer went on an indefinite leave. He reportedly received death threats.
Unless Pakistan's government takes stronger steps to protect its Shiite citizens, they'll have little choice but to try to defend themselves. Pakistan's existing insurgency could descend into a civil war.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 07 Oct 2011 04:35

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162- ... 03543.html
Pakistan diplomat rages on "how we have been treated"
U

.S.-Pakistan relations are at an all-time low. Pakistan's U.N. Ambassador Abdullah Hussein Haroon, speaking to CBS News about the allegations of Pakistani-ISI links to insurgents, said that Pakistan wants to end terrorism in his country and that Washington and Afghanistan are blaming Pakistan, making it the scapegoat for a conflict which victimizes Pakistan more than it hurts the U.S. or Afghanistan."For the past few months it's been the U.S. who keeps trying to put pressure by saying Pakistan this or Pakistan that," Haroon said. "That policy needs reappraisal. You need to talk as allies, don't talk down to us. This is not going to succeed. Politics should be transactional, not coercive. We want success. We don't want this mess on our doorstep for the next 100 years. It's not of our making, not of our choosing, not of our doing. We've paid the highest price for this war."

Watch the Video , :Poak Deep-Low-mat's body language speaks volume, claim Poaks were self sufficient Cunt ry ,now treated like Pariah

parsuram · Post by **parsuram** » 07 Oct 2011 04:43

Lilo:

Re:

The resultant financial and military power in Iran's hands will give pak+saudia a lasting headache.

I would be very circumspect with these bstrd sons of Nadir the Shah. Let us not forget the great bon homme of the relationship of civilizations or what ever that sprang up in the 90s, where the chilluns of the Persian civilization (dont they wish) suddenly found long lost closeness - or whatever - with India. No, I would not put anything as dangerous as "financial and military power" of any great consequence among those animals. Never forget who it is we have have been introduced to under - for us- very poor circumstances.

Rana · Post by **Rana** » 07 Oct 2011 04:50

Is that Fat ******** from Austin Powers? What a pretentious idiot with a condescending attitude.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 07 Oct 2011 04:59

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzEARDmU ... %3Drelated

Sexual Assault and torture by PA. Terrible.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Oct 2011 05:51

Dilbu wrote:Worldview: Pakistan must choose: Halt terror, or else
Put the Haqqani network on the terrorist list for its bloody attacks on Afghan civilians.

Threaten to put Pakistan on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terror, which would mean U.S. and possibly European sanctions.

Make military aid contingent on real Pakistani cooperation against terrorists. (Tomsen is more reluctant for now to cut civilian aid, since Pakistan's weak civilian government is not party to ISI machinations.)

Give up illusions about talks with the Taliban. Pakistan has made clear that it will undermine such talks, unless they put its proxies in power; the ISI may have been behind the recent murder of Afghanistan's chief negotiator with the Taliban.

Rally Afghanistan's neighbors and other global powers concerned about Afghan chaos to pressure Islamabad. That includes India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China - which may sell Pakistan weapons but will not be the sugar daddy Pakistan hopes for.

Don't send ground forces into Pakistan. It's too risky and could be counterproductive.

"Our goal is to get Pakistan to change voluntarily," Tomsen said.

But the administration's message should be clear. Pakistan must choose: Halt terrorism by groups under its sway or face diplomatic isolation, with stark economic consequences. If Pakistan's military and the ISI continue to back extremists who kill Americans, they become America's enemy - with all the consequences that entails

Did MMS write this moronically spineless article? Can't be an American article. America is too powerful to write such a pathetic balls-free bunch of suggestions

1. Call the Hackany network bad names (terrorists) - not Pakistan
2. Threaten Pakistan
3. Give military aid to Pakistan. Add some conditions
4. Ask Pakistan to "give up illusions"
5. Ask Pakistan's neighbors like Indian and Iran and China to do something. Let China continue to supply arms
6. Do not send the US military into Pakistan. It' s too scary/dangerous.
7. Try and make Pakistan "change voluntarily"!

Phew that article is total garbage. Who is this hijra Tomsen?

saip · Post by **saip** » 07 Oct 2011 06:04

The article may be total garbage but look at the loony's (editor rupeenews) comments. Something in that hit him where it hurts.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Oct 2011 06:23

Prem wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162- ... 03543.html
Pakistan diplomat rages on "how we have been treated"
U
.S.-Pakistan relations are at an all-time low. Pakistan's U.N. Ambassador Abdullah Hussein Haroon, speaking to CBS News about the allegations of Pakistani-ISI links to insurgents, said that Pakistan wants to end terrorism in his country and that Washington and Afghanistan are blaming Pakistan, making it the scapegoat for a conflict which victimizes Pakistan more than it hurts the U.S. or Afghanistan."For the past few months it's been the U.S. who keeps trying to put pressure by saying Pakistan this or Pakistan that," Haroon said. "That policy needs reappraisal. You need to talk as allies, don't talk down to us. This is not going to succeed. Politics should be transactional, not coercive. We want success. We don't want this mess on our doorstep for the next 100 years. It's not of our making, not of our choosing, not of our doing. We've paid the highest price for this war."
Watch the Video , :Poak Deep-Low-mat's body language speaks volume, claim Poaks were self sufficient Cunt ry ,now treated like Pariah

The hoity-toityi Brit uppah class accented Paki rips up his US interviewer. Right up to the 1970s and early 1980s - the US were in awe of Great britain and went "wow! oooh! aaaah"!" of British stuff. It was only after the Thatcher-eagan affair endeed that America got rid of its Brit hangover,. Sio a lot of Brit admirers and brit-dhimmis are still alive in the US and those guys will be charmed/intimidated by this Paki if they can stay awake for this interviews to finish.

In this case the score is Pakistan +1, CBS news/USA -1

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 07 Oct 2011 06:29

Prem wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162- ... 03543.html
Pakistan diplomat rages on "how we have been treated"

Wow, that was one heck of a theatrical performance by the TSP RAPE diplomat. Where did he get his phony brit accent from? I cannot believe that TSP can continue living a lie through such glib talk. But TSP can pull off such sophistry only becasue it believe it has some big time leverage over US. Does it really, or is US gving it a pass?

The CBS female, Pamela whatever, true to form was like a programmed robot, Hukkkan, Hukkkani was repeated with defeaning precision. Note, like a patriotic Amercian, she simply passed over the fact that was rubbed in by RAPE, namley, Hukkani was feted on the white house lawn once upon a time. She was not equipped to deal with that, nor was she required to. All she was required to do was repeat Hukkani, Hukkani.

In the end, the TSP theme is there for everyone to see. TSP is not interested in minute details like Hukkani. As the RAPE kept repeating, TSP stood by US through the thick and thin, they opened up China thereby facilitating US exit from Vietnam (some gall for Paki to claim that they ended the Vietnam war

) etc etc, and now US must "talk" as ally, must reciprocate. And we know what that reciprocation means: India on a silver platter.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Oct 2011 06:46

saip wrote:The article may be total garbage but look at the loony's (editor rupeenews) comments. Something in that hit him where it hurts.

I think that editor has merely misinterpreted the headline of this weak article that constitutes a call for the US to cop out.

"Halt terror or else" (we will mollycoddle you and pay you and more)

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 07 Oct 2011 06:58

Same Pompom Poak

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 07 Oct 2011 07:01

shiv wrote:
Dilbu wrote:Worldview: Pakistan must choose: Halt terror, or else
Who is this hijra Tomsen?

From the article:

One man with good ideas on the subject is Peter Tomsen, a career diplomat who served as special U.S. envoy to the Afghan resistance from 1989 to 1992.

Means he is essentially one with Milt Bearden, Michael Scheuer, Charlie Wilson types who were served kababs and whiskey by white-gloved TSPA waiters, and for whom (even in the face of all evidence to the contrary) Bakistan can do no wrong. And if it cannot be denied that Bakistan has done wrong, the only possible solution is to mollycoddle them.

The guy probably had his shoes personally polished by Man-Bear-Pig (the puccah chappie who appears in the CBS News interview.)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Oct 2011 07:33

CRamS wrote:Where did he get his phony brit accent from?

That is a question that requires study on its own. That guy is probably in his 60s. That means his education was in the 1960s and 1970s at which time he was probably studying in Britain. He's probably from a wealthy family. If you had to pick up that kind of accent - you can't actually live in mango Britain. You have to have access to some particular British institutions, which of course means money. Money will always get you in there.

The other interestng thing is the man's skin color. He is as gora as they get. When you meet Pakis and look at Pakis mango Abduls - you find that 40-50% of them are SDRE. But Paki diplomats and jernails (save Musharraf) are always goras. These fellows all come from a narrow genetic pool and a small set of Paki families. These families also encourage the production of legitimate/illegitimate children with goris. Examples abound. Salman Taseer himself was a mixed breed with gora. Air Commodore Nosey Haider produced some half-breeds. Imran Khan has also produced some gora half breeds. In short teh 40-50% Pakis who are SDRE are invariably excluded from the top representative positions of Pakistan. This definitely earns a "one of us" feeling among at least some goras. I mean all you guys who live in the west know damn well that at some level having that extra gora touch does help.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Oct 2011 07:33

Prem wrote:Same Pompom Poak

What's his name - I want t see if I can do a background check. I

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 07 Oct 2011 07:37

saip wrote:The article may be total garbage but look at the loony's (editor rupeenews) comments. Something in that hit him where it hurts.

This rupeenews along with several other websites are hosted on anon website from Arizona, this is nothing but ISI propaganda, 400% pure unadulterated garbage. Just a word of caution.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 07 Oct 2011 07:46

Peter Tomsen is actually one of the few US policymakers who were trying to persuade the USG to engage with the Northern Alliance before 9/11. Read Steve Coll's book for more. He has been outspoken about TSPA/ISI since 9/11 before it has become fashionable. Let's not disparage everyone.

saip · Post by **saip** » 07 Oct 2011 07:49

I know. When someone refers to India as Bharat repeatedly, that is dead give away that he is an ISI stooge.

arun · Post by **arun** » 07 Oct 2011 08:00

Nandu wrote:Transcripts are here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... -president

Q(Matt Spetalnick): ... On the foreign policy front, do you agree with Admiral Mullen’s accusation that Pakistan’s intelligence agency has used the Haqqani network as a virtual arm? And what, if any, consequences up to and including a cut-off of aid would you be willing to consider?

Obama: ...
With respect to Pakistan, I have said that my number-one goal is to make sure that al Qaeda cannot attack the U.S. homeland and cannot affect U.S. interests around the world. And we have done an outstanding job, I think, in going after, directly, al Qaeda in this border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. We could not have been as successful as we have been without the cooperation of the Pakistan government. And so, on a whole range of issues they have been an effective partner with us.

What is also true is that our goal of being able to transition out of Afghanistan and leave a stable government behind -- one that is independent, one that is respectful of human rights, one that is democratic -- that Pakistan, I think, has been more ambivalent about some of our goals there. And I think that they have hedged their bets, in terms of what Afghanistan would look like. And part of hedging their bets is having interactions with some of the unsavory characters who they think might end up regaining power in Afghanistan after coalition forces have left.

What we’ve tried to persuade Pakistan of is that it is in their interest to have a stable Afghanistan; that they should not be feeling threatened by a stable, independent Afghanistan. We’ve tried to get conversations between Afghans and Pakistans going more effectively than they have been in the past, but we’ve still got more work to do. And there is no doubt that there is some connections that the Pakistani military and intelligence services have with certain individuals that we find troubling. And I’ve said that publicly, and I’ve said it privately to Pakistani officials as well.

They see their security interests threatened by an independent Afghanistan in part because they think it will ally itself to India, and Pakistan still considers India their mortal enemy. Part of what we want to do is actually get Pakistan to realize that a peaceful approach towards India would be in everybody’s interests, and would help Pakistan actually develop, because one of the biggest problems we have in Pakistan right now is poverty, illiteracy, a lack of development, civil institutions that aren’t strong enough to deliver for the Pakistani people. And in that environment you’ve seen extremism grow. You’ve seen militancy grow that doesn’t just threaten our efforts in Afghanistan but also threatens the Pakistani government and the Pakistani people as well. So trying to get that reorientation is something that we’re continuing to work on; it’s not easy.

Q I’m sorry, sir -- consequences of being (inaudible)?

THE PRESIDENT: We will constantly evaluate our relationship with Pakistan based on, is, overall, this helping to protect Americans and our interests. We have a great desire to help the Pakistani people strengthen their own society and their own government. And so I’d be hesitant to punish aid for flood victims in Pakistan because of poor decisions by their intelligence services. But there is no doubt that we’re not going to feel comfortable with a long-term strategic relationship with Pakistan if we don’t think that they’re mindful of our interest as well.

Just as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is “hedging” in Afghanistan, so too is the US President ”hedging” by not calling out the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for fomenting Islamic Terrorism.

An attempt to dilute the involvement of “State Actors” in fomenting Islamic Terrorism in Afghanistan by ascribing those events to “some connections” and a reluctance to impose penalties for the Islamic Terrorist supporting actions of the Republic of Pakistan is discernible.

The two mentions of India is interesting.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 07 Oct 2011 08:11

Shiv, that Poak is the Puki ambassador to the UN, one Abdullah Hussein Haroon.

http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/06/us-alleg ... aroon.html Sorry the link didn't come out properly this effing iPad is a pain in the arse. Also if you hadn't heard a good joke today read the Dawn article. I think the Puki ambassador is smoking some of the Taliban's main export.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Oct 2011 08:21

Rangudu wrote:Peter Tomsen is actually one of the few US policymakers who were trying to persuade the USG to engage with the Northern Alliance before 9/11. Read Steve Coll's book for more. He has been outspoken about TSPA/ISI since 9/11 before it has become fashionable. Let's not disparage everyone.

No one should get any more disparaging about Tomsen than we should get about weak kneed statements from MMS. Here is part of what Tomsen is quoted as having said

Rally Afghanistan's neighbors and other global powers concerned about Afghan chaos to pressure Islamabad. That includes India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China - which may sell Pakistan weapons but will not be the sugar daddy Pakistan hopes for.

Don't send ground forces into Pakistan. It's too risky and could be counterproductive.

"Our goal is to get Pakistan to change voluntarily," Tomsen said.

He wants to "rally Afghnistan's neighbours" and mentions only Iran and China. Of those two he says China will arm Pakistan anyway. The others to be "raliied" are KSA and India. Does he say "Don't arm Pakistan?". No.He has already said "Make arming Pakistan conditional" . If the US is going to arm Pakistan what is there to "rally" India with?

The he says "Don;t send ground forces into Pakistan". That is rich. He say "Arm Pakistan conditionally. Don't send US troops. Rally India and others. China will arm Pakistan anyway".

Finally he tops up this with "Our goal is to get Pakistan to change voluntarily,"

What the hell is this man getting at R man?

arun · Post by **arun** » 07 Oct 2011 08:29

X Posted from the ISI History and discussions thread.

Former US Defense Secretary Robert Gates is reported by wire service Associated Press as saying at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point that “Pakistan's intelligence agency has ties to a militant group active in neighboring Afghanistan”

What’s with this pattern of US Officials only waxing explicitly about the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s dalliance with Islamic Terrorists at or close to their retirement?

AP via WSJ:

Gates: Pakistan spy agency tied to militant group

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 07 Oct 2011 08:31

http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2011/ ... -haqqanis/
Pakistan: Now or Never?

have to assume she means Jalaluddin Haqqani, the elderly father who has since passed on much of the leadership of the Haqqani network to his son, Siraj. Yet here is the thing. I cannot find any evidence that Haqqani ever visited the White House. I have asked around among Afghanistan and Pakistan experts. I have skimmed through my copy of Charlie Wilson’s War. I have asked on Twitter if anyone could show that Haqqani had ever visited the United States.
And so far I have nothing. I am not going to say definitively that Jalaluddin Haqqani never visited the United States – the little voice in my head that says people who live in glass houses should not throw stones stops me from doing that. But my working assumption – until proved otherwise – is that Clinton was wrong.
So why does it matter? The United States and Saudi Arabia did fund the mujahideen in the 1980s and to some extent bear the responsibility for what is happening now.
It matters for three reasons. It matters because if we can’t get our historical facts right, policy decisions are being made based on very shaky foundations. The nature of U.S., Saudi and Pakistani support for the jihad against the Soviets is still very much open to debate.According to its defenders, the Pakistan army paid a very high price for fighting the Soviets on America’s behalf. Pakistan also had some three milliion Afghan refugees to deal with and when the Soviet Union retreated from Afghanistan it was left with thousands of armed Islamist militants without a cause and a raging Afghan civil war on its borders. Helping bring the Taliban to power in Kabul and turning the jihadis on Kashmir was a way of dealing with that problem.Yet – and here is where history matters – how much was Pakistan a victim of the U.S. Cold War against the Soviet Union and how much did it turn it to its advantage? It might have been possible during the jihad against the Soviets for Pakistan to support Afghan nationalist insurgents with U.S. and Saudi money – Pakistan controlled the way these funds were spent. The Pakistan army chose to stress Islamist militancy over Pashtun nationalist militancy in part because it has always been afraid of Pashtun nationalism on its side of the border. By stressing Islamist over nationalist/ethnic militancy, the Pakistan army opted for what to a military mind was the best way to protect the integrity and unity of Pakistan. (This was also obvious in some ways for an army which had lost East Pakistan to ethnic nationalism in the 1971 war which led to the creation of Bangladesh.) -In many ways, that mindset continues. Work out how far the Pakistan army is dependent on instrumentalising Islam in its security posture and you are a long way to understanding how big the gap is between the United States and Pakistan.
But one thing seems to me can be said with certainty. We should not be allowing a narrative to develop in which the Haqqanis appear to have an obvious role in an Afghan settlement – or at the very least a role which might help the west extract itself from Afghanistan – without knowing more about who they are.And we should certainly not drift mindlessly into that narrative simply because, or especially because, the U.S. Secretary of State has, historically speaking, invited them into the White House.

Rajdeep · Post by **Rajdeep** » 07 Oct 2011 08:33

What gives these paapis the balls to go against their massa ?
When they are dependent on the khans for everything from civilian aid to military aid.
Is a back ended deal ( no pun intended ) already been stuck ?

PS - After watching the vid , it seems Miss haroon gave too much of her masculinity to Mr Khar.