# Clinton Warns Pakistan of "severe consequences."



## Skeptic

Hillary Clinton says the U.S. has gotten more cooperation from Pakistan in the war on terror, but warns that if a successful terror attack would be traced back to that country there would be "severe consequences."

Clinton on War on Terror, Pakistan - 60 Minutes - CBS News

(CBS) Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the Pakistani government has been warned that if a terror operation like the failed Times Square bombing were to be successful and found to be originated in their country, "there would be very severe consequences." 

*Clinton also acknowledged Pakistan's increased cooperation in the war on terror, but said the U.S. wants and expects even more from the Muslim nation. 
*
The interview was conducted in Washington Friday by "60 Minutes" correspondent Scott Pelley for a report to be broadcast this Sunday, May 9, at 7 p.m. ET/PT. 

"*We've made it very clear that if, heaven-forbid, an attack like this that we can trace back to Pakistan were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences,*" Clinton tells Pelley. The car bomb that fizzled out in Time Square last week was planted by Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized American citizen who was born in Pakistan and says he had terrorist training there. 

Clinton says Pakistan's attitude toward fighting Islamic terrorists has changed remarkably. "*We've gotten more cooperation and it's been a real sea change in the commitment we've seen from the Pakistan Government. [But] We want more. We expect more,*" says Clinton.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Pakistani Man

I appreciate this warning to the Pakistani Government. This should force Zardari to everything in his power to eliminate these terrorists. It will be good for Pakistan and the U.S.A.


----------



## Hulk

Hope that day does not arise, although major attacks have gone down but real test will be when army moves out.


----------



## ramu

Pakistani Man said:


> I appreciate this warning to the Pakistani Government. This should force Zardari to everything in his power to eliminate these terrorists. It will be good for Pakistan and the U.S.A.



Good that it is being taken in the right spirit. Yes Pakistan is expected to do more and act on terrorists on Pak soil.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## U-571

one of billion reasons, why pakistanis hate americans, nuf said..

attitdue like this, like warning, threatening selling junk at high price, bad mouthing pakistan and pakistanis, pakistan being their most important ally will not help

the man was not even a pakistani, he was american with pak origin, so responsibility goes to them not us. next time a saudi does that, please do put pressure on saudi arab by putting oil embargo and by not purchasing their oil. please do it..


----------



## Omar1984

The world is a much more dangerous place after 9/11. There was nothing like this before 9/11. This war OF terror that clinton and the rest of american politicians are supporting are creating more and more terrorists. Washington is the creator of all this terror.


----------



## Pakistani Man

U-571 said:


> one of billion reasons, why pakistanis hate americans, nuf said..
> 
> attitdue like this, like warning, threatening selling junk at high price, bad mouthing pakistan and pakistanis, pakistan being their most important ally will not help
> 
> the man was not even a pakistani, he was american with pak origin, so responsibility goes to them not us. next time a saudi does that, please do put pressure on saudi arab by putting oil embargo and by not purchasing their oil. please do it..



Times like this make me miss Musharraf so so much. He would have responded in an intelligent way to this. Stupid fool Zardari can't communicate well and this rhetoric keeps happening and Pakistan's name is being destroyed.


----------



## Pakistani Man

I think Pakistan needs to take drastic action and kill all those known terrorists and those suspected of terrorism and those who assoicate with terrorism and those support terrorism. 

Sure innocent lives will be lost but something major needs to be done. This must not continue any longer. This needs to be done for the survival of Pakistan. Pakistan will not become a Somalia, Iraq or Afghanistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Omar1984

Pakistani Man said:


> I think Pakistan needs to take drastic action and kill all those known terrorists and those suspected of terrorism and those who assoicate with terrorism and those support terrorism.
> 
> Sure innocent lives will be lost but something major needs to be done. This must not continue any longer. This needs to be done for the survival of Pakistan. Pakistan will not become a Somalia, Iraq or Afghanistan.



You cant just go into an area and start killing. That will just anger the local population and create more terrorists.

Why do you think US and 7 nations can not win in Afghanistan.

We have to understand why are terrorists born? Why now and not before 9/11? US needs to get out of Afghanistan for there to be peace in the world.

You have to have the support from the local population. Without that you cant win.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## U-571

Pakistani Man said:


> I think Pakistan needs to take drastic action and kill all those known terrorists and those suspected of terrorism and those who assoicate with terrorism and those support terrorism.
> 
> Sure innocent lives will be lost but something major needs to be done. This must not continue any longer. This needs to be done for the survival of Pakistan. Pakistan will not become a Somalia, Iraq or Afghanistan.



this war on terror is itself endangering the survival of pakistan. look at the ethnic differences emerging nowadays.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## was

why can,t our corrupt goverment stop taking money and just say f@ck off to US.


----------



## ramu

was said:


> why can,t our corrupt goverment stop taking money and just say f@ck off to US.



They simply cannot do that as they need US for access to Market, influence in IMF. To fund development and projects in Pakistan, the famous Kerry Luke bill, etc.

If Pakistan could do that, it would have done that long back.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## was

ramu said:


> They simply cannot do that as they need US for access to Market, influence in IMF. To fund development and projects in Pakistan, the famous Kerry Luke bill, etc.
> 
> If Pakistan could do that, it would have done that long back.



yea cheers man it seems you indian guys are very happy about all this.


----------



## Windjammer

Skeptic said:


> Hillary Clinton says the U.S. has gotten more cooperation from Pakistan in the war on terror, but warns that if a successful terror attack would be traced back to that country there would be "severe consequences."
> 
> Clinton on War on Terror, Pakistan - 60 Minutes - CBS News
> 
> (CBS) Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the Pakistani government has been warned that if a terror operation like the failed Times Square bombing were to be successful and found to be originated in their country, "there would be very severe consequences."
> 
> *Clinton also acknowledged Pakistan's increased cooperation in the war on terror, but said the U.S. wants and expects even more from the Muslim nation.
> *
> The interview was conducted in Washington Friday by "60 Minutes" correspondent Scott Pelley for a report to be broadcast this Sunday, May 9, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
> 
> "*We've made it very clear that if, heaven-forbid, an attack like this that we can trace back to Pakistan were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences,*" Clinton tells Pelley. The car bomb that fizzled out in Time Square last week was planted by Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized American citizen who was born in Pakistan and says he had terrorist training there.
> 
> Clinton says Pakistan's attitude toward fighting Islamic terrorists has changed remarkably. "*We've gotten more cooperation and it's been a real sea change in the commitment we've seen from the Pakistan Government. [But] We want more. We expect more,*" says Clinton.


Yes, Cheers.... My dear. !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## TechLahore

Ramu: you brought up kasab here for no reason. What happened in response was no surprise.

All: I will now ban folks who can't stick to the topic and troll, or incessantly respond to trolls.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ramu

TechLahore said:


> Ramu: you brought up kasab here for no reason. What happened in response was no surprise.
> 
> All: I will now ban folks who can't stick to the topic and troll, or incessantly respond to trolls.



Wrong. Read the deleted posts. The new york bomber was called an american and his Paksitani origin was side stepped.

I brought to their notice that this denial has happened before. Lets not get in to cause and effect and let go of utter racist comments made by Omar. If this is a forum that is country blind, he ought to be banned.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Windjammer

was said:


> can somebody tell me why these indian guys are so interested that their are more indians than pakistanis in this thread???



They need a platform to gloat and rant their stuff.

You give them space and they think they own the damn place.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## was

makikirkiri said:


> The country which claims the hindu king porus who bravely fought alexander to be their own..Thinks they are not the infidel blood.
> If atleast for your great bin qasim upon whose arrival ,acc to pakistanis, all hindus and buddhists of the area happily embraced islam who now form the bilk of pakistan's population...are they not infidel blood.
> If pakistanis don't have the same infidel lood as indians do,
> well then where did you all come from? Mars?



i would respond you by using ur account pic

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## T-Faz

Perhaps US should close down the Hardline Islamist websites viewable in US first and control their own citizens to make some progress. This guy was reportedly on the no fly list, was monitored for a few years and his links with terrorists should have raised the alarm.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Windjammer

makikirkiri said:


> The country which claims the hindu king porus who bravely fought alexander to be their own..Thinks they are not the infidel blood.
> If atleast for your great bin qasim upon whose arrival ,acc to pakistanis, all hindus and buddhists of the area happily embraced islam who now form the bilk of pakistan's population...are they not infidel blood.
> If pakistanis don't have the same infidel lood as indians do,
> well then where did you all come from? Mars?



I think you will find there is a difference between ancestral relationship and blood ties.


----------



## Pakistani Man

Lets not forget that India has almost 200,000 million Muslims. Some of them are extremists especially the Hesrebarthi Indian Muslims.

Who is to say they are not coming to Pakistan and creating carnage?


----------



## TechLahore

ramu said:


> Wrong. Read the deleted posts. The new york bomber was called an american and his Pakistani origin was side stepped.
> 
> I brought to their notice that this denial has happened before. Lets not get in to cause and effect and let go of utter racist comments made by Omar. If this is a forum that is country blind, he ought to be banned.



I've read all the posts. You really fed the trolls, responded wih racist comments yourself and also originally brought up Kasab for no reason other than cheap point scoring. Omar, you and makikirkiri are all banned. Thank you very much.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## U-571

^^ you are magarmuch lol mashallah techlahore has a good diet. just kidding


----------



## SurvivoR

Great job TechLahore... Finally a MOD who is not afraid to exercise his rights. Keep it up TL!


----------



## Gin ka Pakistan

"severe consequences" . What they will make Pakistan Another Afghanistan? 

Yes Pakistan has a problem of terrorism and corruption, it effects the world too. 

The solution is to discourage corruption and to find honest people in Pakistan and Afghanistan to be their partners in WOT.


----------



## deckingraj

Gin ka Pakistan said:


> "severe consequences" . What they will make Pakistan Another Afghanistan?
> 
> Yes Pakistan has a problem of terrorism and corruption, it effects the world too.
> 
> The solution is to discourage corruption and to find honest people in Pakistan and Afghanistan to be their partners in WOT.



Understand the consequences...They are sole superpower and can kick a$$ of Pakistan, India, China combined..... God forbids if there is any succesful terror attack on US soil there is no doubt in my mind that it will follow with US military action in Pakistan....Now along with your Army or against it will depend on your political stand at that time...

Even though i am a proud Indian yet would be scared to be on bad side of Americans...So i guess Pakistan should ensure terrorist are in control and eliminated....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani Man

rajinikant said:


> If George W Bush is president now, Things could have been different.
> 
> - 1-2 Aircraft carrier moved to arabin sea
> - 1 phone call to zadari at late night or early in the morning.
> - Drones flying allover pakistan.
> - USA special forces taking control over pak nukes
> - Gen Kiyani along with zadari at white house



Listen Ramu before the Mods check your IP address and ban you again,

Don't forget Bush lifted the sanctions on Pakistan and started giving us weapons. We are getting billions of dollars worth of weapons from U.S.A. Dont' forget Bush declared Pakistan a Major Non Nato Ally. The same designation is given to Israel.


----------



## deckingraj

Bush was not retard...So lets not oversimplify the situation... Pakistan is an ally on WOT....and have given supreme sacrifices in this battle...However i believe they need to do some more introspect...Radical Islam is dangerous and when it is given free run for whatever reasons bring in destruction...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-Faz

*******************************************


----------



## deckingraj

Pakistani Man said:


> Listen Ramu before the Mods check your IP address,
> 
> Don't forget Bush lifted the sanctions on Pakistan and started giving us weapons. We are getting billions of dollars worth of weapons from U.S.A. Dont' forget Bush declared Pakistan a Major Non Nato Ally. The same designation is given to Israel.


Very true however Musharraf himself has said about the phone call where he was warned about bombing to stone age...That was Bush era as well....

Long story short you never would like to be on bad side of Americans especially when you are dependent on them...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani Man

deckingraj said:


> Very true however Musharraf himself has said about the phone call where he was warned about bombing to stone age...That was Bush era as well....
> 
> Long story short you never would like to be on bad side of Americans especially when you are dependent on them...



I agree, its just rhetoric, nothing will be done. Pakistan is the U.S. main ally on the war on terror. And I hope Hillary does not forget that Pakistan has had more than its fair share of terror bombings.


----------



## deckingraj

rajinikant said:


> Bush is a great president. He eradicates the problem at the root.


Ask americans.... They would faint laughing at this...Anyways Bush has been great for India but I still have lot of grudge against him for Iraq war....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gin ka Pakistan

deckingraj said:


> Understand the consequences...They are sole superpower and can kick a$$ of Pakistan, India, China combined..... God forbids if there is any succesful terror attack on US soil there is no doubt in my mind that it will follow with US military action in Pakistan....Now along with your Army or against it will depend on your political stand at that time...
> 
> Even though i am a proud Indian yet would be scared to be on bad side of Americans...So i guess Pakistan should ensure terrorist are in control and eliminated....



What can attack on Pakistan do for US ???? make it another Afghanistan and you will have another Afghanistan on your western boarder. Do you want that. 

I think that what terrorist want is to see, US get directly involved in Pakistan and make it a law less country like Iraq or Afghanistan for them. 

Vietnam and Iraq both have seen US might and in the end US had to pack and leave. *Vietnam was lucky but Iraq is now in hell till the end of time. There will never be peace in Iraq for centuries thanks to people who believe in might*


----------



## Pakistani Man

deckingraj said:


> Understand the consequences...They are sole superpower and can kick a$$ of Pakistan, India, China combined..... God forbids if there is any succesful terror attack on US soil there is no doubt in my mind that it will follow with US military action in Pakistan....Now along with your Army or against it will depend on your political stand at that time...
> 
> Even though i am a proud Indian yet would be scared to be on bad side of Americans...So i guess Pakistan should ensure terrorist are in control and eliminated....



I agree....


----------



## deckingraj

I don't think this is good for region on a whole....Americans have a history of leaving far bigger mess then what they go in to clean...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pakistani Man

deckingraj said:


> I don't think this is good for region on a whole....Americans have a history of leaving far bigger mess then what they go in to clean...



Good point.

Jai Ho!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-Faz

deckingraj said:


> Very true however Musharraf himself has said about the phone call where he was warned about bombing to stone age...That was Bush era as well....
> 
> Long story short you never would like to be on bad side of Americans especially when you are dependent on them...



So tell me why did they back off their plan of invading Pakistan, which bush gave orders too when a Pakistani major admitted that pakistan supported the Taliban.

Keep Your wet dreams to yourself.

Bush approves US raids in Pakistan - BloombergUTV.com


----------



## T-Faz

deckingraj said:


> was there any need to talk like a retard??? Secondly why the hell you will nuke India when it is America who is warning ???
> 
> What the heck have we done here??? Are you saying it was RAW who trained this guy in Waziristan and send him to Time Square???



I was responding to your fellow countrymen spewing out garbage retard. And anyone can tell you that India has had a big hand in terrorist campaign in Pakistan from providing explosives to training to the dirty terrorists.

That is what you will suffer for if your wet dream comes true.

I am sick and tired of Indian trolls writing garbage about Pakistan continuously.


----------



## RiazHaq

My view is that Hillary's statement is aimed at domestic audience in America. 

I believe the best way for the US to deal with it is to work in a friendly manner with Pakistanis who are themselves victims of terrorists like the alleged perpetrator in Times Square.

Punishing or maligning all Pakistanis for the acts of a few is neither fair nor wise for America.

Just yesterday State Dept spokesman PJ Crowley said to the media,&#8220;I&#8217;m not going to entertain a question that implicates one country, and to suggest that all terrorism in the world is the responsibility of one country. That&#8217;s not true.&#8221; 

I'm glad to see Pakistani government's quick response to and close cooperation with US after this latest attempted act of terror in New York.

However, whatever Pakistan government or Pakistanis or Pakistani-Americans do to fight terror inside and outside Pakistan, such incidents will still be shamelessly exploited by some of the worst bigots in cyberspace and elsewhere to spew hatred and venom against Pakistan.

A large number of hateful comments in cyberspace from the usual suspects are prime example of the worst kind of naked bigotry against all Pakistanis that is on display here for all to behold. It appears to be part of the ongoing Pakistan bashing campaign in high gear.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## T-Faz

I was there at the peak of tension in 2008/9 when the problem was at boiling point. I did not see any drones.

Troll you will not last here for long. Your buddies the soviets bombed Pakistan toO in the 80's. Look at what happened to them.


----------



## Developereo

The US adminstration knows full well that a military invasion of Pakistan will be counterproductive. However, in the wake of a significant terror attack, the media will stir up such intense hysteria that the administration will have no choice but to take military action.

We can only hope that sane, influential Republicans like John McCain can take control of the hysteria and control the Faux News crowd.

The proper response would be a compromise on both sides. The Pakistan military will have to allow joint military operations by US forces within Pakistan. The US military will have to work alongside the Pakistani military, to make it a joint anti-terrorism rootout, instead of a unilateral US invasion.

The US will give the finger to any Indian tantrums and finally provide the necessary equipment to the Pakistan military to do its job against the militants.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

wave69 said:


> I really hope that Americans do go into pakistan (invasion) and clean up the mess starting with pak army ISi and these mentally retarded pathan tribsmen!!!



That won't happen, but we can clean the trash out from this forum at least.

Ta Ta.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Patriot

I don't think we should really start becoming anti American here...This is for average Joe so they think their government is not weak.The current administration and Pentagon is trying hard to keep Pakistan's image in good shape in America.A lot of US generals have lobbying for Pakistan


----------



## Patriot

military invasion of Pakistan cannot and will not h happen.The only bad guy we will fight is Afghanistan or India..Why does America have to invade Pakistan when it can just call our President or Parliament and get all things done?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## khanz

lol can't even control afganistan and now warning pakistan bring it we'll show her exactly why we are the world's most dangerous country haha they been saying the same thing to iran warning them of this and that they haven't done ****......


----------



## U-571

jees, wow!! this should be a guiness world ban record in an internet forum or something

now techy or agnosty should get a biryani treat from me, cant promise it though  (i make a terrible biryani too and cant promise for a promising taste)


----------



## Nemesis

Rather harsh language for an ally even if it is aimed at the domestic audience. Also 60 minutes on CBS is not really aimed at the "Faux News" jingoist types, it's consistently the most serious and insightful program on US domestic issues. Interesting.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani Man

U.S. is not going to do anything. If anything they are going to give Pakistan more money and weapons and send more military trainers.

If they had the intent of doing anything they would not have sent FBI agents to Pakistan. You think after 9/11 they sent FBI agents of Afghanistan? 

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...m-arrives-pakistan-probe-ties-n-y-bomber.html


----------



## TechLahore

^ disagree w our Indian participant, nemesis. See several other threads re white house toning it down and at one occasion refusing to respond to attacking questions about Pakistan. 'Serious consequences' here does not mean serious consequences for Pakistan, but serious consequences in the sense of the action taken against such groups.if Hillary meant to threaten Pakistan, she would have qualified this comment. She did no such thing. By the way, Pakistan's military is already super serious in this regard and is leading the charge and sacrificing more than any other military in meeting the challenge of terrorism. Every day we are annihilating these sw1nes wherever they are found. Without the PA's efforts, all would be lost for the world at large viz the spread of large scale terrorism...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nemesis

> disagree w our Indian participant, nemesis. See several other threads re white house toning it down and at one occasion refusing to respond to attacking questions about Pakistan. 'Serious consequences' here does not mean serious consequences for Pakistan, but serious consequences in the sense of the action taken against such groups.



As opposed to serious consequences in the sense of the action not being taken against these groups presently?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## IceCold

NEW YORK: The United States has warned of "severe consequences" if a successful extremist attack in America were traced back to Pakistan, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Friday in an interview with CBS' "60 Minutes."

The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for a failed bid to bomb New York's Times Square last Saturday. If proven, it would be the group's first act in the United States.

Pakistani-American Faisal Shahzad has been charged with driving the crude homemade bomb into Midtown Manhattan and said he acted alone, according to authorities. But investigators have uncovered possible links to the Pakistani Taliban and a Kashmiri Islamist group.

"We've gotten more cooperation. It's been a real sea change in the commitment we have seen from the Pakistani government. We want more, we expect more," Clinton said in the interview to be aired on Sunday. Excerpts were released on Friday.

"We've made it very clear that if -- heaven-forbid -- an attack like this that we can trace back to Pakistan were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences," she said, without elaborating.

Shahzad, 30, who was born in Pakistan and became a U.S. citizen last year, has admitted to the failed plot and to receiving bomb-making training in a Taliban and al Qaeda stronghold in Pakistan, prosecutors said.

He has been charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction and trying to kill and maim people, as well as other counts. Shahzad is yet to appear in court as he has waived his U.S. legal rights and is talking to investigators.

Clinton: 'severe consequences' in case of attack


----------



## IceCold

WTF? why would there be severe consequences for Pakistan? How exactly is this our fault? Are they again threatening to bomb us back to stone age or this was just a ploy to force Pakistan to move further towards north and start another operation. 
In either case the events and circumstances does not seem to favor Pakistan.


----------



## EagleEyes

Severe consequences for who? The terrorists or the Pakistani government for not doing enough? How about protecting United States correctly and then blame the other people later. The guy almost ran away from this country. I call that a failure..a much bigger failure, than you would like Pakistan to improve upon.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## JonAsad

swere consequences for whome? Pakistan or TTP?

These type of swere consequences were offered to Pervaiz Musharraf aswell are we at stone age yet?

The able zardari led government will be able to handle the situation like musharraf did let them strike TTP within Pakistan- No?


----------



## IceCold

*Severe consequences in case of attack: Clinton*​



NEW YORK: The United States has warned of severe consequences if a successful extremist attack in America were traced back to Pakistan, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Friday in an interview with CBS' 60 Minutes, reports Reuters.

The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for a failed bid to bomb New York's Times Square last Saturday. If proven, it would be the group's first act in the United States.

Pakistani-American Faisal Shahzad has been charged with driving the crude homemade bomb into Midtown Manhattan and said he acted alone, according to authorities. But investigators have uncovered possible links to the Pakistani Taliban and a Kashmiri Islamist group.

We've gotten more cooperation. It's been a real sea change in the commitment we have seen from the Pakistani government. We want more, we expect more, Clinton said in the interview to be aired on Sunday. Excerpts were released on Friday.

We've made it very clear that if  heaven-forbid  attacks like this that we can trace back to Pakistan were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences, she said, without elaborating.

Shahzad, 30, who was born in Pakistan and became a US citizen last year, has admitted to the failed plot and to receiving bomb-making training in a Taliban and al-Qaeda stronghold in Pakistan, prosecutors said.

He has been charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction and trying to kill and maim people, as well as other counts.

Shahzad is yet to appear in court as he has waived his US legal rights and is talking to investigators.

Better Relationship

Tension remained high in New York after Shahzad was plucked from an Emirates airline flight he boarded on Monday night even though he had been placed on a no fly list.

Several blocks of Times Square were shut down again on Friday for 90 minutes to investigate a suspicious package that turned out to be a lunch cooler.

Some analysts have speculated that if the Pakistani Taliban were involved in the Times Square plot, it could be responding to US drone attacks that have killed militants hiding in Pakistan as well as civilians.

The United States, which sees Pakistan's effort against militants as crucial to its fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan, has about 200 military personnel in Pakistan, including Special Operations forces on a training mission.

We also have a much better relationship, military to military, intelligence to intelligence, government to government than we had before, Clinton said. I think that there was a double game going on in the previous years, where we got a lot of lip service but very little produced.

We've got a lot produced. We have seen the killing or capturing of a great number of the leadership of significant terrorist groups and we're going (to) continue that, she said in the interview.

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Friday the United States was prepared to provide more assistance to Pakistan if it wanted it in the wake of the attempted Times Square bombing.

DAWN.COM | World | Severe consequences in case of attack: Clinton


----------



## Prometheus

*



investigators have uncovered possible links to the Pakistani Taliban and a Kashmiri Islamist group.

Click to expand...

*
Is this kashmir group LeT or some one else???/


----------



## karan.1970

Webby.. Just because a country failed to prevent an terror attack on itself(and its an impossible task which Pakistan knows too well), it will not give up its right to prosecute someone it feels is the attacker.. We all know that America is not India who can be tangled up in legal stonewalling by Pakistan. If they start believing (correctly or incorrectly) that Pakistan is complicit in an attack on US, nothing will stop them from doing another iraq in Pakistan...

But I think this statement domestically will be a foolish move by Clinton. The hawks in US political world will question the logic of waiting for a successful attack. Why would US want its citizens to be killed before it acts.. From an intention of the attacker's perspective, a failed attack is same as a successful attack..

Lets see how this pans out...


----------



## karan.1970

Prometheus said:


> Is this kashmir group LeT or some one else???/



I think I saw the name of Jaish mentioned somewhere...


----------



## EagleEyes

karan.1970 said:


> Webby.. Just because a country failed to prevent an terror attack on itself(and its an impossible task which Pakistan knows too well), it will not give up its right to prosecute someone it feels is the attacker.. We all know that America is not India who can be tangled up in legal stonewalling by Pakistan. *If they start believing (correctly or incorrectly) that Pakistan is complicit in an attack on US, nothing will stop them from doing another iraq in Pakistan...*
> 
> But I think this statement domestically will be a foolish move by Clinton. The hawks in US political world will question the logic of waiting for a successful attack. Why would US want its citizens to be killed before it acts.. From an intention of the attacker's perspective, a failed attack is same as a successful attack..
> 
> Lets see how this pans out...



Your argument holds little or no value. What would Pakistan try to achieve by acting complicit or in other words support this terror act?

You also mention that nothing will stop U.S. doing another Iraq. There is a big difference in what Iraq was and what Pakistan is.

It is the failure of intelligence within the country. Pakistan can only do so much. The proof of that is the suicide bombing attacks within its borders. Would Pakistan be acting complicit in that sense?

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Prometheus

karan.1970 said:


> I think I saw the name of Jaish mentioned somewhere...



so that mean Massod azhar is some involved with taliban.???

further investigations may tell more things.

Hillary is just kidding with pakistan..............they need pakistan at this time


----------



## Marxist

Prometheus said:


> Is this kashmir group LeT or some one else???/



washingtonpost.com

article about JeM involvement.


----------



## Gin ka Pakistan

Prometheus said:


> they need pakistan at this time



I think US needs *P*akistan for a long time. they have already wasted 100 billions in Afghanistan with Indians.


----------



## Marxist

*U.S. says wants more from Pakistan, could boost aid*



KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters) &#8211; The United States wants and expects more from Pakistan in the fight against insurgents and is ready to offer additional assistance if Islamabad asks, two senior Obama administration officials said on Friday.

"We've gotten more cooperation and it's been a real sea change in the commitment we've seen from the Pakistan government. (But) we want more. We expect more," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told CBS' "60 Minutes" in an interview, excerpts of which were released on Friday.

She added that Washington had also warned of "severe consequences" if a successful attack in America were traced back to Pakistan. She did not elaborate.

Investigations into the Pakistani-American suspect in last Saturday's failed bombing attempt in New York's Times Square have uncovered possible links to the Pakistani Taliban and a Kashmiri Islamist group.

That has prompted speculation the United States, Pakistan's top provider of aid, could press Islamabad to open risky new fronts against Islamic militants.

But Defense Secretary Robert Gates, speaking to reporters on a trip to Kansas, appeared to play down the chances of an expanded Pakistani crackdown on insurgents.

He pointed to the strain on security forces already battling militants in tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

"With their military operations in the west, they've started to be pretty thinly stretched themselves, as well as taking a substantial number of casualties," Gates said.

The United States was ready to step up assistance to Pakistan, he said.

"We're willing to do as much ... as they are willing to accept," Gates said. "We are prepared to do training, and exercise with them. How big that operation becomes is really up to them."

DOUBLE GAME

Citing anti-American sentiment in Pakistan, Gates added, "They (Pakistani leaders) are also very interested in keeping our footprints as small as possible, at least for now."

President Barack Obama's administration has repeatedly praised Pakistani military operations over the past year, including the recent capture in Pakistan of the Afghan Taliban's No. 2, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar.

Clinton said it marked an improvement from the "double game going on in the previous years, where we got a lot of lip service but very little produced."

"We have seen the killing or capturing of a great number of the leadership of significant terrorist groups and we're going (to) continue that," she said.

The United States, which sees Pakistan's effort against militants as crucial to its fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan, has about 200 military personnel in Pakistan, including Special Operations forces on a training mission.

The CIA is also waging a covert war using pilotless drone aircraft to target insurgents in Pakistan.

"I think cooperation has continued to (improve), the relationship is continuing to improve, and I think we just keep moving in that direction," Gates said.

A White House official said the United States had been working with Pakistan and would keep assisting a Pakistani offensive to root out the Taliban.

"We've been working on the other side of the border, of course, with Pakistan in developing a strong partnership in which they have gone on the offensive -- the largest offensive they've undertaken in some years -- in order to root out extremists within their borders, including the Taliban," deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters.

(Additional reporting by Matt Spetalnick, Writing by Phil Stewart; Editing by Peter Cooney)
U.S. says wants more from Pakistan, could boost aid - Yahoo! News


----------



## Areesh

Gin ka Pakistan said:


> I think US needs *P*akistan for a long time. they have already wasted 100 billions in Afghanistan with Indians.



If they continue with Indians they might lose everything.


----------



## Prometheus

Gin ka Pakistan said:


> I think US needs *P*akistan for a long time. they have already wasted 100 billions in Afghanistan with Indians.



sorry .......wasnt able to understand what you are trying to say???

I thought pakistan is invovled in WoT with US............where did India came instead of Pakistan???


----------



## Prometheus

Areesh said:


> If they continue with Indians they might lose everything.


----------



## sam27

I think Indian folks should pray that this doesnot happen, because then we will be having Gujarat, Punjab, Rajasthan and Infact entire India in a disarray.lets hope that some common sense prevails..


----------



## Gin ka Pakistan

Prometheus said:


> sorry .......wasnt able to understand what you are trying to say???
> 
> I thought pakistan is invovled in WoT with US............where did India can instead of Pakistan???



you said


> this time


 , sorry .......... wasn't able to understand what you mean by *This time *


----------



## Indiarox

Hope this never happens If it does Gujarat, Punjab, Rajastan will face a massive refugee problem like the one faced buy Bengal and N.E in 1970's


----------



## afriend

Wot would be this severe consequences.??? may be more direct attacks by usa inside pakistani territory. I think pakistan should allow.. it by protesting it in principle..!!! Two birds with one shot.... Your army will not be overstreched and will not lose precious lives.. and all the bad elements will be taken out by america at their own expense..!!!!


----------



## Siddiqui A

85% of their supplies go from pakistan...block 'em and then we'll see consequences..no need to pay heed to her statement which she HAD to make politically...try to understand what i mean bruvz


----------



## Gin ka Pakistan

afriend said:


> Wot would be this severe consequences.??? may be more direct attacks by usa inside pakistani territory. I think pakistan should allow.. it by protesting it in principle..!!! Two birds with one shot.... Your army will not be overstreched and will not lose precious lives.. and all the bad elements will be taken out by america at their own expense..!!!!



Were they able to do so in south Afghanistan in the current offensive , Pakistan Army is doing much better work then them. 

It will be a big help to Pakistan, if the drug money coming from Afghanistan be cut of for extremism in Pakistan.


----------



## JonAsad

These are clever Politicians and we are Stupid People.

Why the lovely Hillary will make a statement like this?

Think


----------



## H2O3C4Nitrogen

well i gues the incident served its purpose well, US found a way to blackmail us again . Lucky for Pakistan that its not early qurter of this decade when Richered Armitage thretened to send us Back to the stone age. I think this trick is old now the US should have come up with something new the least. Are there no innovators left.. 
Or May be the Optimistic POV can be that, the Hilliray Clinton's statement is for the local population consumption and to fend off Local Political rivals who would just find any thing to score points. What evers the case its surely not good for Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mjnaushad

Good Cop bad cop,,,,,Some day later someone else will say Pakistan is doing a good job and is major ally etc etc.....

We should not forget no one is guilty unless proved beyond any reasonable doubt.


----------



## PAKFA

Indiarox said:


> Hope this never happens If it does Gujarat, Punjab, Rajastan will face a massive refugee problem like the one faced buy Bengal and N.E in 1970's



It will not happen , all theses states has closed border with massive fencing.


----------



## mehru

Warning of severe consequences will not solve the problem. America needs to keep an eye on people in its own territory. We are not responsible for everything that happens in their country neither they are responsible for everything that goes wrong in our country.
As for Pakistanis, it's our prime responsibility to keep an eye on people around us like relatives, friends and our other contacts. If anyone shows murderous or suspicious behaviour then report it to the authorities. Shehzada's relatives and friends noticed change in his personality but noone cared to report it, not even his wife which i am sure was aware of it. Later his friends admitted their mistake. Same goes for Overseas Pakistanis.
And another thing that we need to counter is conspiracy theories and Anti Americanism. A very interesting article that i read today is pointing to this very issue.

*Faisal Shahzad&#8217;s anti-Americanism *

The man who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square was a Pakistani. Why is this unsurprising? Because when you hold a burning match to a gasoline tank, the laws of chemistry demand combustion.

As anti-US lava spews from the fiery volcanoes of Pakistan&#8217;s private television channels and newspapers, a collective psychosis grips the country&#8217;s youth. Murderous intent follows with the conviction that the US is responsible for all ills, both in Pakistan and the world of Islam.

Faisal Shahzad, with designer sunglasses and an MBA degree from the University of Bridgeport, acquired that murderous intent. Living his formative years in Pakistan, he typifies the young Pakistani who grew up in the shadow of Ziaul Haq&#8217;s hate-based education curriculum. The son of a retired air vice-marshal, life was easy as was getting US citizenship subsequently. But at some point the toxic schooling and media tutoring must have kicked in.

There was guilt as he saw pictures of Gaza&#8217;s dead children and related them to US support for Israel. Internet browsing or, perhaps, the local mosque steered him towards the idea of an Islamic caliphate. This solution to the world&#8217;s problems would require, of course, the US to be destroyed. Hence Shahzad&#8217;s self-confessed trip to Waziristan.

Ideas considered extreme a decade ago are now mainstream. A private survey carried out by a European embassy based in Islamabad found that only four per cent of Pakistanis polled speak well of America; 96 per cent against.

Although Pakistan and the US are formal allies, in the public perception the US has ousted India as Pakistan&#8217;s number one enemy. Remarkably, anti-US sentiment rises in proportion to aid received. Say a good word about the US, and you are labelled as its agent. From what TV anchors had to say about it, Kerry-Lugar&#8217;s $7.5bn may well have been money that the US wants to steal from Pakistan rather than give to it.

*Pakistan is not the only country where America is unpopular. In pursuit of its self-interest, the US has waged illegal wars, bribed, bullied and overthrown governments, supported tyrants and undermined movements for progressive change. Paradoxically America is disliked more in Pakistan than in countries which have born the direct brunt of its attacks &#8212; Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Why?*

Drone strikes are a common but false explanation. Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi implicitly justifies the Times Square bombing as retaliation but this does not bear up. Drone attacks have killed some innocents but they have devastated militant operations in Waziristan while causing far less collateral damage than Pakistan Army operations.

On the other hand, the cities of Hanoi and Haiphong were carpet-bombed by B-52 bombers and Vietnam&#8217;s jungles were defoliated with Agent Orange. Yet, Vietnam never developed visceral feelings like those in Pakistan.

Finding truer reasons requires deeper digging. In part, Pakistan displays the resentment of a client state for its paymaster. US-Pakistan relations are transactional today but the master-client relationship is older. Indeed, Pakistan chose this path because confronting India over Kashmir demanded big defence budgets. In the 1960s, Pakistan entered into the Seato and Cento military pacts, and was proud to be called &#8216;America&#8217;s most allied ally&#8217;. The Pakistan Army became the most powerful, well-equipped and well-organised institution in the country. This also put Pakistan on the external dole.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, even as it brought in profits, deepened the dependence. Paid by the US to create the anti-Soviet jihadist apparatus, Pakistan is now being paid again to fight that war&#8217;s blowback. Pakistan then entered George W. Bush&#8217;s war on terror to enhance America&#8217;s security &#8212; a fact that further hurt its self-esteem. It is a separate matter that Pakistan fights that very war for its own survival and must call upon its army to protect the population from throat-slitting fanatics.

Passing the buck is equally fundamental to Pakistan&#8217;s anti-Americanism. It is in human nature to blame others for one&#8217;s own failures. Pakistan has long teetered between being a failed state and a failing state. The rich won&#8217;t pay taxes? Little electricity? Contaminated drinking water? Kashmir unsolved? Blame it on the Americans. This phenomenon exists elsewhere too. For example, one saw Hamid Karzai threatening to join the Taliban and lashing out against Americans because they (probably correctly) suggested he committed electoral fraud.

Tragically for Pakistan, anti-Americanism plays squarely into the hands of Islamic militants. They vigorously promote the notion of an Islam-West war when, in fact, they actually wage armed struggle to remake society. They will keep fighting this war even if America were to miraculously evaporate. Created by poverty, a war culture and the macabre manipulations of Pakistan&#8217;s intelligence services, they seek a total transformation of society. This means eliminating music, art, entertainment and all manifestations of modernity. Side goals include chasing away the few surviving native Christians, Sikhs and Hindus.

At a time when the country needs clarity of thought to successfully fight extremism, simple bipolar explanations are inadequate. The moralistic question &#8216;Is America good or bad?&#8217; is futile.

There is little doubt that the US has committed acts of aggression, as in Iraq, and maintains the world&#8217;s largest military machine. We know that it will make a deal with the Taliban if perceived to be in its self-interest &#8212; even if that means abandoning the Afghans to bloodthirsty fanatics. Yet, it would be wrong to scorn the humanitarian impulse behind US assistance in times of desperation. Shall we write off massive US assistance to Pakistan at the time of the earthquake of 2005? Or to tsunami-affected countries in 2004?

*In truth, the US is no more selfish or altruistic than any other country. And it treats its Muslim citizens infinitely better than we treat non-Muslims in Pakistan.
*
*Instead of pronouncing moral judgments on everything and anything, we Pakistanis need to reaffirm what is truly important for our people: peace, economic justice, good governance, rule of law, accountability of rulers, women&#8217;s rights and rationality in human affairs. Washington must be resisted, but only when it seeks to drag Pakistan away from these goals. More frenzied anti-Americanism will produce more Faisal Shahzads.*

The writer teaches at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## H2O3C4Nitrogen

i think her statement is for local population consumption and to deal with Political Opponents who would find any thing to point scores, however instead of hoping for the best we should be prepared for the worst . Moreever i think the Ops in NW has become more likely but should only be carried out when situatiuon is feasable and when PA has gain sufficent consolidation in its gains in SW,Bajor and SWAT.


----------



## below_freezing

Pakistan needs ICBMs in case some large country in the western hemisphere believes that it is able to conquer pakistan with little to no losses. the warning signs have been there for a while.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## H2O3C4Nitrogen

> The proper response would be a compromise on both sides. The Pakistan military will have to allow joint military operations by US forces within Pakistan. The US military will have to work alongside the Pakistani military, to make it a joint anti-terrorism rootout, instead of a unilateral US invasion.



There are no guarantees for a joint Military action in NW to succeed. However the US can help to increase surveillance through drones and in the Heliborn Operation against the millitants. But Still it will be sign of weakness to ask for help when our own Armed forces are doing good . I dough the public perception abt the PA might change .
The best thing would be that our PA carries out Military action on its own. Though the price would be high but it will help PA to develop and mature skills and tactics in Counter-Insurngency Operations.


----------



## IceCold

below_freezing said:


> Pakistan needs ICBMs in case some large country in the western hemisphere believes that it is able to conquer pakistan with little to no losses. the warning signs have been there for a while.



Actually you are right however the current state of our economy does not allow us to acquire an ICBM. Another factor is that maybe for now Pakistan does not want to alienate its western so called allies by bringing them directly into Pakistans strategic range. I suppose for the latter part Pakistan can launch an ICBM project in disguise of an SLV project.


----------



## Prometheus

Gin ka Pakistan said:


> you said , sorry .......... wasn't able to understand what you mean by *This time *



means the time which is going on now...........


----------



## Napalm

*Clinton warns Pak: Stop terrorists or else...* 

In the strongest message to Pakistan since the failed Times Square bombing plot, United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has warned of 'severe consequences' if a successful terror attack is traced back to that country.

In an interview with CBS, which will be aired on Sunday, Clinton said that though Pakistan's attitude towards Islamic terrorism has changed in the recent past, it still needs to take far more stringent measures to quell militancy emanating from its soil.

"We've made it very clear that if, heaven-forbid, an attack like this that we can trace back to Pakistan were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences," Clinton warned.

"We've gotten more cooperation and it's been a real sea-change in the commitment we have seen from the Pakistan government. But we want more. We expect more," she added.

Acknowledging that both US and Pakistan share much better military and intelligence ties than before, Clinton minced no words in saying that Islamabad

had been playing a 'double game' on the issue of terrorism.

"I think that there was a double game going on in the previous years, where we got a lot of lip service but very little was produced. We have seen the killing or capturing of a great number of the leadership of significant terrorist groups and we are going to continue that," Clinton said. 
Clinton warns Pak: Stop terrorists or else...: Rediff.com India News


----------



## yashchauhan

IF US ATTACKS PAKISTAN LIKE IRAQ....JUST IN CASE...THEN IT WILL HAVE MIXED EFFECT ON INDIA AND CHINA...ATTACKING A NATION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF WORLD'S TWO PLANETARY POWERS WILL SURELY CREATE SOME BROWS!


----------



## abrahams

mehru said:


> Faisal Shahzad, with designer sunglasses and an MBA degree from the University of Bridgeport, acquired that murderous intent. Living his formative years in Pakistan, he typifies the young Pakistani who grew up in the shadow of *Ziaul Haqs hate-based education curriculum*. The son of a retired air vice-marshal, life was easy as was getting US citizenship subsequently. But at some point the toxic schooling and media tutoring must have kicked in.
> 
> The writer teaches at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.



I guess this is the root cause... of all this mess... and can only be changed by re-writing the so-called hate based curriculum...


----------



## abrahams

attacking pakistan would make it a mess in our region... for india's best interest pakistan should be a well developed state or developing state then only the rhetoric of forcing a war would mellow down cause then there is more to loose..


----------



## karan.1970

Siddiqui A said:


> 85% of their supplies go from pakistan...block 'em and then we'll see consequences..no need to pay heed to her statement which she HAD to make politically...try to understand what i mean bruvz



c'mon dude.. Your military runs on their hardware. Your country depends heavily on their money.. This hoo-ha of blocking supplies is just rhetoric.. get over it..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## T-Faz

karan.1970 said:


> c'mon dude.. Your military runs on their hardware. Your country depends heavily on their money.. This hoo-ha of blocking supplies is just rhetoric.. get over it..



We survived in the 90's without them 'dude', ad these threats are nothing but hoo haa from a falling power.

Sort yourself out and then blame others, the mighty USSR threatened us too. Remember them and them talk.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SAUD-404

below_freezing said:


> Pakistan needs ICBMs in case some large country in the western hemisphere believes that it is able to conquer pakistan with little to no losses. the warning signs have been there for a while.



well, the way i see this all west vs pakistan thing, is they are not brave enough to go to war wid us, one reason being we are the best and close friends of china, so we dont need icbms


----------



## FlickerSingh

SAUD-404 said:


> well, the way i see this all west vs pakistan thing, is they are not brave enough to go to war wid us, one reason being we are the best and close friends of china, so we dont need icbms



so china will nuke america if america goes to war with u ?  

americans should take cover now that their drones are whacking some of your population in your country. who knows when china will launch a nuke against america


----------



## karan.1970

T-Faz said:


> We survived in the 90's without them 'dude', ad these threats are nothing but hoo haa from a falling power.
> 
> Sort yourself out and then blame others, the mighty USSR threatened us too. Remember them and them talk.



I think you misunderstood my post. and I dont disagree with your comment on the threats.. 

I just think the threat of blocking supplies to Afg at drop of the hat is just not practical. Is Clinton making a political statment so detrimental to Pakistan that it would initiate such hostilities with USA at the cost of all the aid it receives..??


----------



## Peregrine

Hi
I would really like to see what Americans will do in case of any attack on its soil with alleged links to Pakistan. Americans need to understand that Pakistan is not Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan. Apart from being a Nuclear power Pakistan happen to have very strong support of China. If Pakistan withdraws support to Allies in Afghanistan & actually start doing what the Pakistani's are accused of then the world will see how long the Americans will last on Afghani soil, So instead of pointing fingers at Pakistan, Americans should grasp the reality that its not in Pakistan's control to prevent such attacks, of all the countries Pakistan has suffered irreparable losses as a consequence of this WOT.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## graphican

IceCold said:


> NEW YORK: The United States has warned of "severe consequences" if a successful extremist attack in America were traced back to Pakistan, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Friday in an interview with CBS' "60 Minutes."
> 
> The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for a failed bid to bomb New York's Times Square last Saturday. If proven, it would be the group's first act in the United States.
> 
> Pakistani-American Faisal Shahzad has been charged with driving the crude homemade bomb into Midtown Manhattan and said he acted alone, according to authorities. But investigators have uncovered possible links to the Pakistani Taliban and a *Kashmiri Islamist group*.
> 
> "We've gotten more cooperation. It's been a real sea change in the commitment we have seen from the Pakistani government. We want more, we expect more," Clinton said in the interview to be aired on Sunday. Excerpts were released on Friday.
> 
> "We've made it very clear that if -- heaven-forbid -- an attack like this that we can trace back to Pakistan were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences," she said, without elaborating.
> 
> Shahzad, 30, who was born in Pakistan and became a U.S. citizen last year, has admitted to the failed plot and to receiving bomb-making training in a Taliban and al Qaeda stronghold in Pakistan, prosecutors said.
> 
> He has been charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction and trying to kill and maim people, as well as other counts. Shahzad is yet to appear in court as he has waived his U.S. legal rights and is talking to investigators.
> 
> Clinton: 'severe consequences' in case of attack



     

HOLY SH!!!T! Punjabi me kehte hain "Gittay nal Barvatta" (Eye-brow attached to Ankle).


----------



## graphican

On Serious Notes to Ms. Clinton - We hold America from its balls. You cannot afford so offend Pakistan to keep this gapping hole closed if you cannot speak with sensibility.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SMC

Looks like a typical case of an old angry woman. They're almost always angry (at least in the west) when they get old.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iPhone

Pakistani Man said:


> Times like this make me miss Musharraf so so much. He would have responded in an intelligent way to this. Stupid fool Zardari can't communicate well and this rhetoric keeps happening and Pakistan's name is being destroyed.


Yes, all he did was talk, master of the word game and purely zero constructive work. He is one of the many reasons we are in this mess.
Back to Hilary, exactly in what context she said this will be seen tomorrow on 60 min but just taking taking what she said at a face value assuming she meant a military strike of some sort within Pakistan then it doesn't sound too good. Statement like this could imbolden militants who would want nothing more than a major US inavsion on Pak which could give them countless amount of people on their side, strengthen their organization and cause and if they get a hint of how to get the US to do this they might go extreme measures to acheive their goals. 
,

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## deepak75

graphican said:


> On Serious Notes to Ms. Clinton - We hold America from its balls. You cannot afford so offend Pakistan to keep this gapping hole closed if you cannot speak with sensibility.



It is two dimensional sir. U.S is allowing Pakistan to hold its balls as long as Pakistan is doing the job.

If Pakistan does not do it then it is already a stated position of Obama that U.S will directly intervene. The same was the case when Pakistan was refusing the presence of the Quetta Shoora and then later Pakistan eliminated Quetta Shoora.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cynic Waheed

I dont think anything is gna happen! Faisal is not the first case.. there was david headley etc.. what happened then? Nothing! So nothing will happen even now! We in Pak are used to this crap and we dont even take it seriously anymore... 

Though I doubt if Clinton's remarks were for domestic audience, I personally think these remarks are to pressure Pak to go into North Waziristan asap! But with Gen Kiyani around I dont see that hapening just as yet! Having said that I know we will eventually go into N. Waziristan but just not as yet. 

Like gates put it in his remarks, Pak army is thinly stretched already so the Americans are aware of it. I think they trying their best to get Pak to action in the North asap! 
Nice try clinton... not gna happen just as yet!


----------



## T-Faz

deepak75 said:


> It is two dimensional sir. U.S is allowing Pakistan to hold its balls as long as Pakistan is doing the job.
> 
> If Pakistan does not do it then it is already a stated position of Obama that U.S will directly intervene. The same was the case when Pakistan was refusing the presence of the Quetta Shoora and then later Pakistan eliminated Quetta Shoora.



Quetta Shura is still around, only badaber was arrested, do you know who is in the Quetta Shura.

Even the validity of such a group is shrouded in mystery as the militant groups do not have much coopeartion with each other.

It is just a rouse to classify all these people as one just like WOT classified all different terrorist groups as one and it was the biggest blunder of all.


----------



## SSGPA1

What else can one expect from Clinton and the US?

They easily forget the peaceful and meaningful contribution of thousands of Pakistanis living and working in the US in exchange of one person's action.

*"I think that there was a double game going on in the previous years, where we got a lot of lip-service but very little produced," she said.*

Sure, the 'little prduced' was from a responsible govt. which didn't want to create a complete howak in Pakistan because the responsibility of that govt. was to protect the interests of Pakistan first.

Once Gen. Musharraf said - 

*"I do not lead a war on terror on behalf of the United States, but on behalf of Pakistan," Musharraf told French newspaper Le Figaro in an interview published Saturday. *

*"It is in Pakistan's interest to eradicate terrorism and extremism. This is what the Pakistani people wish, it does not want terrorists nor extremists ... We are leading our own war, even though Pakistan's interests on that point are shared with those of the United States and the coalition in Afghanistan." *

Musharraf tells U.S.: Stay out of Pakistan - CNN.com

********************

*But the past two years had seen "the killing or capturing of a great number of the leadership of significant terrorist groups", Mrs Clinton added. 

"We've gotten more co-operation and it's been a real sea change in the commitment we've seen from the Pakistan government. We want more. We expect more." *

This govt. is a slave govt. which will do anything to satisfy the US demands! 

********************

*"We've made it very clear that if - heaven-forbid - an attack like this that we can trace back to Pakistan were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences," she warned.

*
You can say that because Gen. Musharraf is not in power and there is not anyone to respond back to this rubbish and utter nonsense!

Well let me assure you Mrs. Clinton that Pakistan may be ruled by your pets buit the nation itself is not your slave. We are an independent nation and we are not weak like Iraq and Afghanistan.

*Your confidence is from attacking weak soverign nations but Pakistan is a different ball game altogether. I am sure somewhere your troops must be calling you a clueless old hag.*

Gen Musharraf once responded to such threat by saying - 

*"Nobody will come here until we ask them to come and we haven't asked them," Musharraf told the Strait Times this week.

Strait Times reporter Anthony Paul asked Musharraf: "If the Americans came, would you treat that as an invasion?"

"Certainly," Musharraf said. "If they come without our permission, that's against the sovereignty of Pakistan."*

Musharraf tells U.S.: Stay out of Pakistan - CNN.com

*GEN MUSHARRAF PLEASE COME BACK AND LEAD PAKISTAN​*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Areesh

SMC said:


> Looks like a typical case of an old angry woman. They're almost always angry (at least in the west) when they get old.



Haha.. Well if that's the case we have Shah Mehmood Qureshi to handle her.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## khanz

SSGPA1 said:


> What else can one expect from Clinton and the US?
> 
> They easily forget the peaceful and meaningful contribution of thousands of Pakistanis living and working in the US in exchange of one person's action.
> 
> *"I think that there was a double game going on in the previous years, where we got a lot of lip-service but very little produced," she said.*
> 
> Sure, the 'little prduced' was from a responsible govt. which didn't want to create a complete howak in Pakistan because the responsibility of that govt. was to protect the interests of Pakistan first.
> 
> Once Gen. Musharraf said -
> 
> *"I do not lead a war on terror on behalf of the United States, but on behalf of Pakistan," Musharraf told French newspaper Le Figaro in an interview published Saturday. *
> 
> *"It is in Pakistan's interest to eradicate terrorism and extremism. This is what the Pakistani people wish, it does not want terrorists nor extremists ... We are leading our own war, even though Pakistan's interests on that point are shared with those of the United States and the coalition in Afghanistan." *
> 
> Musharraf tells U.S.: Stay out of Pakistan - CNN.com
> 
> ********************
> 
> *But the past two years had seen "the killing or capturing of a great number of the leadership of significant terrorist groups", Mrs Clinton added.
> 
> "We've gotten more co-operation and it's been a real sea change in the commitment we've seen from the Pakistan government. We want more. We expect more." *
> 
> This govt. is a slave govt. which will do anything to satisfy the US demands!
> 
> ********************
> 
> *"We've made it very clear that if - heaven-forbid - an attack like this that we can trace back to Pakistan were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences," she warned.
> 
> *
> You can say that because Gen. Musharraf is not in power and there is not anyone to respond back to this rubbish and utter nonsense!
> 
> Well let me assure you Mrs. Clinton that Pakistan may be ruled by your pets buit the nation itself is not your slave. We are an independent nation and we are not weak like Iraq and Afghanistan.
> 
> *Your confidence is from attacking weak soverign nations but Pakistan is a different ball game altogether. I am sure somewhere your troops must be calling you a clueless old hag.*
> 
> Gen Musharraf once responded to such threat by saying -
> 
> *"Nobody will come here until we ask them to come and we haven't asked them," Musharraf told the Strait Times this week.
> 
> Strait Times reporter Anthony Paul asked Musharraf: "If the Americans came, would you treat that as an invasion?"
> 
> "Certainly," Musharraf said. "If they come without our permission, that's against the sovereignty of Pakistan."*
> 
> Musharraf tells U.S.: Stay out of Pakistan - CNN.com
> 
> *GEN MUSHARRAF PLEASE COME BACK AND LEAD PAKISTAN​*



They talk big but don't do jack our government maybe cowards but the pakistani people are not we are still waiting for obama to invade us like he threatened to do a few years ago

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## karan.1970

Peregrine said:


> Hi
> I would really like to see what Americans will do in case of any attack on its soil with alleged links to Pakistan. Americans need to understand that Pakistan is not Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan. Apart from being a Nuclear power Pakistan happen to have very strong support of China. If Pakistan withdraws support to Allies in Afghanistan & actually start doing what the Pakistani's are accused of then the world will see how long the Americans will last on Afghani soil, So instead of pointing fingers at Pakistan, Americans should grasp the reality that its not in Pakistan's control to prevent such attacks, of all the countries Pakistan has suffered irreparable losses as a consequence of this WOT.



IMHO, the follies of your arguement

1. Over estimation of Pakistan's nuclear status. Doesnt mean squat to USA. You dont have a delivery mechanism to hit them. As a matter of fact its much more easy for US to hit Pakistan than it was to hit iraq. 

2. Overestimation of your relations with China. China will never (atleast next 20 years or so) raise a finger to protect Pakistan from USA. The most important thing for China is its economy and it will never endanger it by going up against USA. Pakistan is a tool for China against India and that's pretty much it..In USA China equation, Pakistan has no place or role..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Imran Khan

she need her army go alive back from afghanistan or all should be in boxes ?????


----------



## T-Faz

karan.1970 said:


> IMHO, the follies of your arguement
> 
> 1. Over estimation of Pakistan's nuclear status. Doesnt mean squat to USA. You dont have a delivery mechanism to hit them. As a matter of fact its much more easy for US to hit Pakistan than it was to hit iraq.
> 
> 2. Overestimation of your relations with China. China will never (atleast next 20 years or so) raise a finger to protect Pakistan from USA. The most important thing for China is its economy and it will never endanger it by going up against USA. Pakistan is a tool for China against India and that's pretty much it..In USA China equation, Pakistan has no place or role..



Well China did warn USA against any misadventure within Pakistan in 2008. Also when was the last time USA won a war, we might be completely crushed initially, but once the asymmetric warfare kicks into gear, the the results will speak for themself.

We have a large population, a large army, enough equipment to sustain ourselves and enough proxies to harm many countries. We will use the Islam card, our allies will help us and though they might level out cities in a matter of days, guerilla warfare will come in handy.

We might become another Afghanistan but we will make sure the invaders learn a very hard lesson.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SinoIndusFriendship

khanz said:


> They talk big but don't do jack our government maybe cowards but the pakistani people are not we are still waiting for obama to invade us like he threatened to do a few years ago



USA doesn't dare wage a full-scale war against Pakistan when China is backing Pakistan.

Some Indian members "doubt" China will even help Pakistan at all ---> THEN INDIANS ARE FOOLS, BECAUSE CHINESE HIGHLY REGARD 2 THINGS: (1) HONOR & (2) FRIENDSHIP. SINCE CHINA HAS *REPEATEDLY* STATED THAT SINO-PAK FRIENDSHIP IS (A) "ALL-WEATHER" and (B) HIGHER THAN THE HIMALAYAS, DEEPER THAN THE SEA. THIS MEANS CHINA (1) REGARDS PAKISTAN AS DEAR FRIEND, and (2) CHINA MADE A VERBAL COMMITMENT.

Expect to see support like during the Korean-USA war and during the Viet Nam-USA war ---> We all know how USA was defeated in both!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## SinoIndusFriendship

T-Faz said:


> Well China did warn USA against any misadventure within Pakistan in 2008. Also when was the last time USA won a war, we might be completely crushed initially, but once the asymmetric warfare kicks into gear, the the results will speak for themself.
> 
> We have a large population, a large army, enough equipment to sustain ourselves and enough proxies to harm many countries. We will use the Islam card, our allies will help us and though they might level out cities in a matter of days, guerilla warfare will come in handy.
> 
> We might become another Afghanistan but we will make sure the invaders learn a very hard lesson.



Not to mention Pakistan shares a border with China, just like how Korea & Vietnam shared a border with China. And we all know how that turned out for the Yankees!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## T-Faz

Remember USSR, most powerful military power in the world.

*The Bear Trap* set for them will become the *The Eagle Trap* for americans.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SinoIndusFriendship

T-Faz said:


> Remember USSR, most powerful military power in the world.
> 
> *The Bear Trap* set for them will become the *The Eagle Trap* for americans.



Even though SCO isn't officially a Military Alliance, but in reality it is a de-facto one. 

Remember Pakistan is an observer (and highly valued member) of SCO, along with Iran.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## karan.1970

^^ I think you are misreading the kind of attack (if at all.. its a theoretical discussion) US would launch on Pakistan. I dont think it will be a war of occupation or leveling of cities. Its just that the missiles and drone attacks would spread further and deeper and will come outside of the bounds of the NWFP region. There is no way USA can hope to conquer and occupy a country the size of Pakistan..


----------



## Windjammer

karan.1970 said:


> ^^ I think you are misreading the kind of attack (if at all.. its a theoretical discussion) US would launch on Pakistan. I dont think it will be a war of occupation or leveling of cities. Its just that the missiles and drone attacks would spread further and deeper and will come outside of the bounds of the NWFP region. There is no way USA can hope to conquer and occupy a country the size of Pakistan..



All the rhetoric aside, America doesn't have many friends in this part of the world except perhaps India which is ever ready to prove it's loyalties, but in the Afghan scenario, it's of little value since India and Afghanistan don't share any common border.
In such a difficult situation, the last thing the Americans could afford is to alienate it's ally for WOT. As an Indian National, you more than any one else should have the knowledge of how the leaders resort to chest thumping triads for home consumption. By making such a statement, i would say the lady has killed two birds with a stone.


----------



## T-Faz

*Run USA has invaded*


----------



## H2O3C4Nitrogen

The HC's statement had two purposes , She was bound to give such a statement or else their rivals would have fueled the American public sentiments to a level that things might have become more difficult, Secondly her statement served a purpose to pressurize Pakistan to start a military ops in the north as well, which is not something new , Since last year they are trying very hard to get our military in the North, They did bullyed us in the Past with ten times more the pressure, So i guess the PA's top brass has made clear its position on when,how to start a military action NW to American Establishment during the strategic dialogue, and hopefully the USGov will stick to that and will refrain from further bullying unless it only serves local consumption and to fend off political rivals
Secondly the US is looking for an end-game here it dosent wants to prop up hostilities with its ally which could serve vary valuably in a scenario in which HOW,When and in Which Position the US would eventually want to exit Afghanistan.


----------



## Evil Flare

I think Quershi has Dumped her ....

She really need treatment ....


----------



## Evil Flare

karan.1970 said:


> ^^ I think you are misreading the kind of attack (if at all.. its a theoretical discussion) US would launch on Pakistan. I dont think it will be a war of occupation or leveling of cities. Its just that the missiles and drone attacks would spread further and deeper and will come outside of the bounds of the NWFP region.






They cant even stay 1 More Day in Afghanistan if we want to ...

hillary has lost her mind ... really she dont know what she is speaking ,


----------



## Kinetic

SinoIndusFriendship said:


> Not to mention Pakistan shares a border with China, just like how Korea & Vietnam shared a border with China. And we all know how that turned out for the Yankees!!!



Don't relay on others for your security. China will never come to any one's help. If its US than a big NO. Why they will try to mess with the only hyperpower in the world? Also their current economic boom mainly relates with US. 

* I don't see any reason for US to attack Pakistan. This talks from politicians are pointed towards american people. *


----------



## below_freezing

Kinetic said:


> Don't relay on others for your security. China will never come to any one's help. If its US than a big NO. Why they will try to mess with the only hyperpower in the world? Also their current economic boom mainly relates with US.
> 
> * I don't see any reason for US to attack Pakistan. This talks from politicians are pointed towards american people. *



MacArthur also said that China would never foolishly attack the US Army, "home by christmas", blah blah blah and his general ended up dead, north korea was saved and south korea lost enough civilians and infrastructure to hold back their economic development for 20 years.

If the US occupied Pakistan, then Tibet and Xinjiang are both in danger, just like how our Northeast and Beijing itself was in danger if US occupied north korea, and how Guangdong was in danger if US occupied Vietnam.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## kattu-mian

"Boots on the ground" in Pakistan - The Majlis


----------



## Canadian

i think US should invade Pakistan, then finally Pakistanis will have someone to vent their pent-up anger on and get revenge for the innocents killed in the drone strikes

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## U-571

^^ k.uttas in govt will kiss the bribe and leave the people to their fate


----------



## SinoIndusFriendship

below_freezing said:


> MacArthur also said that China would never foolishly attack the US Army, "home by christmas", blah blah blah and his general ended up dead, north korea was saved and south korea lost enough civilians and infrastructure to hold back their economic development for 20 years.
> 
> If the US occupied Pakistan, then Tibet and Xinjiang are both in danger, just like how our Northeast and Beijing itself was in danger if US occupied north korea, and how Guangdong was in danger if US occupied Vietnam.



For a small battle skirmish between (weak) Indian forces against (valiant) Pakistani Army, China doesn't need to get involved.

But against a (strong) USA Army-Navy-Airforce waging a full-scale war against Pakistan (like it did on Korea and Vietnam) then *Rest Assured China will come to the rescue!*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## waraich66

Khasani bili khamba nauchay

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kidwaibhai

No Body is invading Pakistan. What the article is talking about is more trainers on the ground so that they can speed up the training of the Army and FC thats it. The article specifically states that Pakistan will never allow any use personal to take a combat role during operations anywhere in the country.


----------



## Kompromat

We can cut their supply line and let them ask russians to give them a route.


----------



## graphican

That will prove a blessing for Paksitan. The temperature that stays between 80-90 degrees will eventually reach 100 and this nation needs more than anything. 

As iqbal said "Khuda tujhe kisi tufan se aashna kar day"


----------



## Paksindhi

LET'S CUT THERE FEET'S, SO THERE WILL BE NO QUESTION OF BOOT'S.


----------



## Kinetic

SinoIndusFriendship said:


> For a small battle skirmish between (weak) Indian forces against (valiant) Pakistani Army, China doesn't need to get involved.




Do you need some history lesson here? Why making fun? lol *Why post off topic troll? *



> But against a (strong) USA Army-Navy-Airforce waging a full-scale war against Pakistan (like it did on Korea and Vietnam) then *Rest Assured China will come to the rescue!*



Pakistan fought many wars previous, in how many wars China came to your rescue?

China doesn't have capabilities to face US Pacific command. Learn about both's capabilities.


----------



## karan.1970

Windjammer said:


> All the rhetoric aside, America doesn't have many friends in this part of the world except perhaps India which is ever ready to prove it's loyalties, but in the Afghan scenario, it's of little value since India and Afghanistan don't share any common border.
> In such a difficult situation, the last thing the Americans could afford is to alienate it's ally for WOT. As an Indian National, you more than any one else should have the knowledge of how the leaders resort to chest thumping triads for home consumption. By making such a statement, i would say the lady has killed two birds with a stone.



I think Pakistan in the past overestimated the permanence of its value to USA (during USSR era in Afghanistan) and is making the same mistake again. Once US is out of Afg, there is really no value that Pakistan will hold for USA from a WOT perspective. See Iraq now..

About chest thumping, I guess thats something common to the whole subcontinent with the talks of Islamic bomb and so on..
One should just hope that one never has to find out how serious the lady is while making this statement. Being wrong on this one may not be very pleasent for Pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## karan.1970

Its funny to see that how USA and HC had become so nice after the US Pak strategic meet and every one here couldnt get enough of her pictures of giggling with Q and so on.. And now, she is a frustrated old lady, dumped by Q and has lost her head. 


*Hillary Clinton, Pakistani Foreign Minister Get The Giggles *





*Clinton warns Pakistan of &#8216;severe consequences&#8217; *

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TechLahore

Nemesis said:


> As opposed to serious consequences in the sense of the action not being taken against these groups presently?



Let me assist you in parsing the post... 'these groups' being the future hypothetical groups to whom these imaginary attacks have been traced back to. As you will see in another thread here, there is a huffingtonpost piece which tears apart the nyt's tabloidesque claim about shahzads connections to the Taliban. There were no substantive connections and now the white house is making the right sort of noises on this front also.

Much of the discussion here is way off, in my opinion, to the extent that it envisages future US-Pak conflict scenarios. It ain't happenin'. I can understand your excitement at a statement such as this which can easily be twisted into a 'Beware! The Americans are coming!" sort of two-bit headline, but the fact is that no such threat was made and no action against the Pakistani state was even talked about. I will point out that CSF reimbursements over $600M were remitted to Pakistan right after this NYC incident. Too much is being made of it. Time to move on... The CNN front page certainly has.


----------



## Ghareeb_Da_Baal

Wondering if US is going to go after Saudi Arab first because of 9/11. They can then come after Pak. for times square after dealing with SA.


----------



## yashchauhan

^^^China helping Pakistan in war with US....are out of your mind....US is the biggest market for Chinese goods....and if US pulled of its investments then EU will also....and then China will fall....don't forget that China still is an export oriented economy unlike India which is domestically driven (small exports)with technology,innovation and entrepreneurship...now please don't highlight outsourcing because its not even worth a percent of our GDP!!But the good thing is that China is trying to come out of it while India is trying to increase its manufacturing which is already growing at the rate of 15% per annum.

China wants to remain in the mainstream of the world...and there is no such mutual friendship between China and Pakistan...China is trying to teach India a lesson through Pakistan...true friends are India and Russia or US and UK...time tested and stuborn..and if god goes good...then one day India and China....that's what you call true equal and mutual friendship....remember friendship is always between equals....rest are just exploitation...


----------



## Marxist

*US warns Pakistan over terror: Report*

WASHINGTON: The United States warned Pakistan after the failed Times Square bombing that it must crack down on Islamic militants or face severe consequences, The New York Times reported on late Saturday.

Citing unnamed US and Pakistani officials, the newspaper said US military commander in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal met with the Pakistani military commander General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani in Islamabad on Friday.

He urged Pakistan to quickly begin a military offensive against the Pakistani Taliban and Al-Qaeda in North Waziristan.

The meeting came as US investigators grilled Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-born US citizen whose large but poorly made bomb failed to detonate in New York's Times Square a week ago. He was arrested Monday aboard a plane preparing to take off for Dubai.

Shahzad, the 30-year-old son of a retired Pakistani Air Force officer, faces five terrorist charges in the United States.

US media reports said Shahzad's family knew at least two key Pakistani militants involved in terrorist activities.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Pakistan, in remarks published late Friday, that it faced "very severe consequences" if a terror plot like the Times Square bombing were traced to the country, although she also acknowledged Pakistan's increased cooperation against terrorism.

The Times said the new pressure from Washington was characterized by the Pakistani and US officials as a sharp turnaround from the relatively polite encouragement adopted by the administration of President Barack Obama in recent months.

It came amid increasing debate within the administration about how to proceed in the war on terror that included even "a boots-on-the-ground presence" on Pakistani soil, the report said.

Though the bombing in Times Square failed, Shahzad's ability to move back and forth between the United States and Pakistan has heightened fears in the Obama administration that another attempt at a terrorist attack could succeed, the paper said.

"We are saying, 'Sorry, if there is a successful attack, we will have to act'" within Pakistan, one of the US officials is quoted in the report as saying. 

US warns Pakistan over terror: Report-Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times

ANTARA News: US warns Pakistan over terror: report

---------- Post added at 11:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 AM ----------


----------



## Airtel

Clinton warns pakistan . USA can't survive without pakistan for one day in afghan.

Pakistan should refuse USA aid and shoot down their drones.


----------



## LicencetoKill

yashchauhan said:


> ^^^China helping Pakistan in war with US....are out of your mind....US is the biggest market for Chinese goods....and if US pulled of its investments then EU will also....and then China will fall....don't forget that China still is an export oriented economy unlike India which is domestically driven (small exports)with technology,innovation and entrepreneurship...now please don't highlight outsourcing because its not even worth a percent of our GDP!!But the good thing is that China is trying to come out of it while India is trying to increase its manufacturing which is already growing at the rate of 15% per annum.
> 
> China wants to remain in the mainstream of the world...and there is no such mutual friendship between China and Pakistan...China is trying to teach India a lesson through Pakistan...true friends are India and Russia or US and UK...time tested and stuborn..and if god goes good...then one day India and China....that's what you call true equal and mutual friendship....remember friendship is always between equals....rest are just exploitation...




Tell me what india was before 10 or 15 years your currency value was lower than Pakistan. 
With China you will also go 70% of your money is coming from call center, if some thing happen to USA all your call center will be closed next day.


----------



## Peregrine

karan.1970 said:


> IMHO, the follies of your arguement
> 
> 1. Over estimation of Pakistan's nuclear status. Doesnt mean squat to USA. You dont have a delivery mechanism to hit them. As a matter of fact its much more easy for US to hit Pakistan than it was to hit iraq.
> 
> 2. Overestimation of your relations with China. China will never (atleast next 20 years or so) raise a finger to protect Pakistan from USA. The most important thing for China is its economy and it will never endanger it by going up against USA. Pakistan is a tool for China against India and that's pretty much it..In USA China equation, Pakistan has no place or role..


HI 
T-Faz has summed it well, but to add a few more

many of you are under the impression that Pakistani BM's are of Chinese origin, then in this case what makes you say that Pakistan will not have a DF-21 variant? you are also ignoring the submarine factor its a huge debate but research on it and then you will know what i mean.

not only Pakistan can inflict heavy damage on US forces in Afghanistan but also in Iraq, China supporting Pakistan against India is just your subjective judgment of this relation, for China access to middle east is very significant and China cannot lose this doorway to middle east to the Americans, Proof Gawadar. i hate to break it to you but India is on the least priority for China when it comes to Pakistan's geographical proximity to Arabian sea.


----------



## Javed3

Americans are most welcome. Get Pak Army out of tribal areas and invite the erstwhile Gen McChrystal to try his luck.


----------



## Airtel

Peregrine said:


> HI
> T-Faz has summed it well, but to add a few more
> 
> many of you are under the impression that Pakistani BM's are of Chinese origin, then in this case what makes you say that Pakistan will not have a DF-21 variant? you are also ignoring the submarine factor its a huge debate but research on it and then you will know what i mean.
> 
> not only Pakistan can inflict heavy damage on US forces in Afghanistan but also in Iraq, China supporting Pakistan against India is just your subjective judgment of this relation, for China access to middle east is very significant and China cannot lose this doorway to middle east to the Americans, Proof Gawadar. i hate to break it to you but India is on the least priority for China when it comes to Pakistan's geographical proximity to Arabian sea.



China has vast costline and its industries are developed on eastern side. They don't need pakistan for export and import.

USA only needs pakistan for its supply in afghanistan. To be frank if no WOT, no one cares about pakistan.

Look at the debt crisis last year in pakistan. Now similar debt crisis on Greece.


----------



## kidwaibhai

Airtel said:


> USA will outsource the supply to china? Pakistan has 2 masters.
> 
> Paisa pheko aur tamasha dekho..



What does that mean. The shortest supply lines are through pakistan alone. China cant do anything, hell they want to use pakistani roads so that they can develop the north-western and western part of china. 
Next time before making an argument think it through first.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

No problem with boots we also wear boots , every one wears boots 

Whats your point , if you mean US armed men in Pakistani soil I doubt it ... 

They are welcomed to come have tea and buscuits as we are allies and lets keep it such


----------



## Bill Longley

the well come which these yanks will get in pakistan will be thousands of time better then they got in iraq or afghanistan. thats why i dont think they will dare.
they will instigate india to do their job but india i dont think is so stupid to do any thing which ultimately will shatter its dream of baharat versha for another 1000 years


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Pakistan and US are allies and we are working on joint operations


----------



## r3alist

we dont need another war in pakistan.

my question is why is it that the us needs a military solution to everything.

is there any nation in history who has used violence at every opportunity?


----------



## Bill Longley

US is an empire. its also a vampire 
it needs blood, human blood. no empire in history shed so much blood which it did
it droped A Bomb on japan to test it , although japs had agreed to surrender

it played and is playing bloody game in latin america.

all world is victim of its imperialism not just muslims


----------



## mehru

Most welcome. Let them have a taste of it. They have no idea what they are asking for? Taliban in our country are more vicious than Afghan taliban. 
American army is unable to win battle in Afghanistan. What difference can they make in Pakistan? They will never invade Pak to create another battle ground. Infact they are giving such type of statements just to pressurize our army.


----------



## Marxist

US wont attack Pakistan
1)u have a democratically elected goverment
2)nukes
am not mentioning about china 
Most probably some economic and military sanctions to put pressure on Pakistan


----------



## MZUBAIR

I m not offensive but see wt PAK ex army men says


----------



## H2O3C4Nitrogen

karan.1970 said:


> I think Pakistan in the past overestimated the permanence of its value to USA (during USSR era in Afghanistan) and is making the same mistake again. *Once US is out of Afg, there is really no value that Pakistan will hold for USA from a WOT perspective. See Iraq now..
> *
> About chest thumping, I guess thats something common to the whole subcontinent with the talks of Islamic bomb and so on..
> *One should just hope that one never has to find out how serious the lady is while making this statement. Being wrong on this one may not be very pleasent for Pakistan*



i guess you ignored the fact that the US is exiting Afghanistan and its critical need of Pakistan to cooperate in that sphere,With Iran being a hostile state and Russia actively engaged in CAR domination frenzy,Pakistan is the only country which can somehow provide the US a gateway to CAR,so its Importance to US interests can in noway be underestimated,As goes for India,No country in this world not even Pakistan can progress without having better and friendly ties with India, India has much much more to offer Economically and strategically to the US in the long term,Plus the US interest of containing China military which cant be expected from Pakistan. So Both India and Pakistan have their importance for US. 
I disagree with your analysis that after exiting Afghanistan, Pakistan would have no importance to US, and your comments regarding the HC's grave consequences for Pakistan, Its an empty threat with no real basis,They know who would benefit more by leaving Pakistan,The current expansion of a US embassy in Pakistan dosent points to a scenario where Pakistan could be of no worth to US..!!!


----------



## duhastmish

wrong , on one hand they point finger on Pakistan for terrorism .

second hand they are providing the money and weapon to fund same terrorist taking on india,


she sound mindless talking about these region,

american cant decide who to support and whom not to.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Meengla

Whether on '60 Minutes' or not, Clinton had to say something very strong at some prominent public forum for the consumption of domestic audience. Don't forget that Barack Obama's administration is constantly being (wrongly) accused of being soft on 'national security'. So the context is always very important.
And she left it intentionally open about 'serious consequences' for whom? I don't think she wanted to or meaning to say for Pakistan. The US administration has spent a lot of energy in past several months to make some inroads in Pakistani civil and military power players. Undoing all that because of a 'lone wolf' failed attack where everything, even the stock market, was back to normal in 1-2 days would be an over-reaction and counter-productive. Come on! Think through what would a direct assault against, say, the ISI headquarters mean? Nothing good could come out of that for Americans.


----------



## xenia

Adolf Hitler said:


> US wont attack Pakistan
> 1)u have a democratically elected goverment
> 2)nukes
> am not mentioning about china
> *Most probably some economic and military sanctions to put pressure on Pakistan*


why now??
us is already in its self-created marsh..they wont dare to attack pakistan n why the sanctions u r referring to?


----------



## Marxist

xenia said:


> why now??
> us is already in its self-created marsh..they wont dare to attack pakistan n why the sanctions u r referring to?



to satisfy people of USA,and to pressurize your government for more action against terrorists.u can understand what will happen if Us aid to Pakistan stopped.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## H2O3C4Nitrogen

> american cant decide who to support and whom not to.



at the moment they exactly know how to to deal with both India and Pakistan despite their traditional rivalry, even the rivalry has much to offer US,China,Russia and Israel.


----------



## IceCold

Adolf Hitler said:


> to satisfy people of USA,and to pressurize your government for more action against terrorists.*u can understand what will happen if Us aid to Pakistan stopped*.



Nothing will happen. Get that through your thick indian skulls because you Indians have nothing more then to bring out the same issue of aid and what will Pakistan do without it. Get it over with. Pakistan has survived without US aid and will continue to do so even if that is cut however what will the US do once Pakistan decides to back off from its support to WOT and give those taliban not only a free hand but also logistic support.


----------



## Paksindhi

Clinton's warning, another extention of doo moore policy. why cant pakistan establishment realise, that even if u get star's from the sky, the american won't be satisfy.

WOO AIK SAJDA JESEY TO GARAN SAMAJTA HI, HAZAAR SAJDON SAY DEY TA HEY AADMI KO NEJAAT (pls excuse my spelling mistakes).


----------



## Babur Han

Typical double standart by the US, it seems they have forgotten that they supportet the Terrorists during Cold War Times to weaken Soviet Union. US widespread Islamism in Pakistan in Order to Produce Fighter for the Jihad in Afghanistan, the US should firstly draw it's Conclusions from their own shortsightet Forein Policy !


----------



## Gene

IceCold said:


> Nothing will happen. Get that through your thick indian skulls because you Indians have nothing more then to bring out the same issue of aid and what will Pakistan do without it. Get it over with. Pakistan has survived without US aid and will continue to do so even if that is cut however what will the US do once Pakistan decides to back off from its support to WOT and give those taliban not only a free hand but also logistic support.



Just do that.....& see what happens !!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-Faz

Gene said:


> Just do that.....& see what happens !!!!!



You do not think we have a contingency plan, we had one in the 80's which saved us and we have one now.

Pm me if you need some info on the old contingency plan.


----------



## karan.1970

H2O3C4Nitrogen said:


> i guess you ignored the fact that the US is exiting Afghanistan and its critical need of Pakistan to cooperate in that sphere,With Iran being a hostile state and Russia actively engaged in CAR domination frenzy,Pakistan is the only country which can somehow provide the US a gateway to CAR,so its Importance to US interests can in noway be underestimated,As goes for India,No country in this world not even Pakistan can progress without having better and friendly ties with India, India has much much more to offer Economically and strategically to the US in the long term,Plus the US interest of containing China military which cant be expected from Pakistan. So Both India and Pakistan have their importance for US.
> I disagree with your analysis that after exiting Afghanistan, Pakistan would have no importance to US, and your comments regarding the HC's grave consequences for Pakistan, Its an empty threat with no real basis,They know who would benefit more by leaving Pakistan,The current expansion of a US embassy in Pakistan dosent points to a scenario where Pakistan could be of no worth to US..!!!



I am talking in the context of another attack on US being traced back to Pakistan. In which case the access to CAR will not be as immidate need for the US Govt as to show its populace, who today in its own misguided way equates most Pakistanis to terrorists, some tangible action aka Afghanistan in 2001

Is that the right approach.. Not at all.. But at that time, it wont matter. The biggest problem Pakistan has is that it can no longer control these TTP types as effectively as it did in past and has no way to gaurantee the absence of such an attack


----------



## Frankenstein

Pakistani Man said:


> Times like this make me miss Musharraf so so much. He would have responded in an intelligent way to this. Stupid fool Zardari can't communicate well and this rhetoric keeps happening and Pakistan's name is being destroyed.



You are right, to respond to such Countries we need a Man leader, not a murdered or a psychopath


----------



## khanz

we've heard these empty threats before and they don't scare us remember they also threatened us when pakistan was making nuclear weapons and it didn't do jack to stop us lol plus .She got slapped around in pakistan last time she tried to deal with us anyway probably mentally scarred from her public mauling she received there and it looks like she's venting some frustration.Barking dogs seldom bite anyway.


----------



## T-Faz

khanz said:


> we've heard these empty threats before and they don't scare us remember they also threatened us when pakistan was making nuclear weapons and it didn't do jack to stop us lol plus .She got slapped around in pakistan last time she tried to deal with us anyway probably mentally scarred from her public mauling she received there and it looks like she's venting some frustration.Barking dogs seldom bite anyway.



Slight correction, barking bithces seldom bite.


----------



## Frankenstein

T-Faz said:


> Slight correction, barking bithces seldom bite.



lol, slight change in the Quote, but fits perfectly


----------



## kattu-mian

post self deleted.posted in the wrong thread


----------



## IceCold

Gene said:


> Just do that.....& see what happens !!!!!



Normally i don't reply to kids since its waste of both time and forum bandwidth but let me ask you a question here What exactly will happen? Please enlighten us all.

Thanks


----------



## gurjot

self delete


----------



## deckingraj

IceCold said:


> Normally i don't reply to kids since its waste of both time and forum bandwidth but let me ask you a question here What exactly will happen? Please enlighten us all.
> 
> Thanks



Listen Sir... I am not sure if it make sense to take on US lightly....There is a reason they are in AF and spending billions of $$$... which is, they are very paranoid about their security and don't mind converting cities to rubbles if that is what required to make them safe.... 

History tells us any attack on US soil has been responded with military actions....As of now they are already violating your country Air Space by sending in Drones to attack.... Now there are lot of theories that this is happening with your Administration Approval but atleast on the facade they object to it....So saying that any succesful terror attack on US would not result in some sort of ground action would be too bold a statement to make...They will have to do something that shows a tangible action(succesful or not) against any such attack which can be 

- Economic Sanctions against Pakistan
- Declaring Pakistan a terror state
- Military Action against Terrorist


To my mind third option would suit their Agenda...and first two would be used as a threat to ensure third one goes through smoothly

Mind it i did not put one option which is best one
- Asking Pakistan to ensure these terror outfits are annihilated

However aren't they already doing so??? What different you guys can do then what you are already doing??? and if you can why are you not doing it right away....Some of these questions refrain me from making it a possible option in case there is a successful or for that matter unsuccessful attack in US being traced back to Pakistan...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## IceCold

deckingraj said:


> Listen Sir... I am not sure if it make sense to take on US lightly....There is a reason they are in AF and spending billions of $$$... which is, they are very paranoid about their security and don't mind converting cities to rubbles if that is what required to make them safe....
> 
> History tells us any attack on US soil has been responded with military actions....As of now they are already violating your country Air Space by sending in Drones to attack.... Now there are lot of theories that this is happening with your Administration Approval but atleast on the facade they object to it....So saying that any succesful terror attack on US would not result in some sort of ground action would be too bold a statement to make...They will have to do something that shows a tangible action(succesful or not) against any such attack which can be
> 
> - Economic Sanctions against Pakistan
> - Declaring Pakistan a terror state
> - Military Action against Terrorist
> 
> 
> To my mind third option would suit their Agenda...and first two would be used as a threat to ensure third one goes through smoothly
> 
> Mind it i did not put one option which is best one
> - Asking Pakistan to ensure these terror outfits are annihilated
> 
> However aren't they already doing so??? What different you guys can do then what you are already doing??? and if you can why are you not doing it right away....Some of these questions refrain me from making it a possible option in case there is a successful or for that matter unsuccessful attack in US being traced back to Pakistan...



You missed the purpose of my post, i specifically mentioned 2 things in response to two different people first what would happen once the aid stops and second once it does what impact will it have on Pakistan as per Indian members, Pakistan wont even survive without aid.

Now let me answer your questions one by one
1) Economic sanctions: Will not cripple us as we have suffered them before and can suffer them again. No need for me to repeat the history lessons.
2) Declared Pakistan a terrorist state: wont happen as it needs security council approval and China will veto it.
3)Military action: Apart from the drone attacks which by the way happens with the consent of both countries, any further the US goes will result in a severe retaliation by Pakistan as happened in the past when US special forces attempted an attack on a village leaving many civilians dead.


----------



## mr42O

Clinton should be more worry about Afghanistan. Not only Taliban but drug money too which is going in USA pocket.

When was last time USA arrested any Pakistani wanted terrorists in Afghanistan ? That show what USA realy wants.


----------



## deckingraj

IceCold said:


> You missed the purpose of my post, i specifically mentioned 2 things in response to two different people first what would happen once the aid stops and second once it does what impact will it have on Pakistan as per Indian members, Pakistan wont even survive without aid.


Well i do not think situation will be that grim however one can also not ignore the fact that you needed IMF bail out....Anyways let me share my thoughts on points...




> Now let me answer your questions one by one
> 1) Economic sanctions: Will not cripple us as we have suffered them before and can suffer them again. No need for me to repeat the history lessons.
> 2) Declared Pakistan a terrorist state: wont happen as it needs security council approval and China will veto it.
> 3)Military action: Apart from the drone attacks which by the way happens with the consent of both countries, any further the US goes will result in a severe retaliation by Pakistan as happened in the past when US special forces attempted an attack on a village leaving many civilians dead.



This is exactly what i am challenging....Let me share my thoughts as per points...

1) Sorry to say but this is wishful thinking...What do you mean by "we have suffered them before and we can suffer them again"....Firstly you yourself is saying that you suffered during the time sanctions were put on...Secondly you are already assuming that sanctions would be lifted....whereas unless and until you don't agree to US terms you are going to be under Sanctions...Not only that it would be followed by Arms embargo and what not...Thirdly are'nt you missing India here??? At the time when her economy is booming, all the major defence dealers(Russia, US, Israel, EU) lining to sell state of art weapons it is suicide for Pakistan to come under any economic sanctions...

PAF has already lost a decage due to last Arms embargo viz-a-viz IAF and anything more would definitely be a deathning blow to your Parity....

2) Here you are relying on Chinese Veto...Not that i am implying that you all weather friend won't come in to help however just to given you an example China did not supported you stand during Kargil and when it comes to terrorism the pressure would be immense on them.... I must say you need to have steel balls to oppose a group consisting of both US and Russia...I hope you agree....

3) Already said that on the facade your Parliament opposes these attacks...So for a common man these are happening without the consent of your political class...Anyways did you just said that You would retaliate against Armed Offensive by America?? I am sure you know about their capabilities....Sir with all due respect we are just third world contries and not even in our dreams can win an armed conflict against Americans...Any retaliation against Americans means long term destruction followed by years of instabality....

It would better to join them and get rid of terrorist who are hell bent of bringing Pakistan to the verge of collapse instead of retaliating to American onslaught.....please don't mind but such talks about retaliation make sense when the opposing Party is India but when American's are your opposing party either agree with them or be ready to become another Iraq....


----------



## MZUBAIR

*Mr Faisal Shahzad is not Pakistani*

Source



> Faisal Shahzad is not Pakistani: FM
> Updated at: 2232 PST, Sunday, May 09, 2010
> KARACHI: Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi Sunday said Faisal Shahzad, the man involved in failed attack at Times Squre, is not a Pakistani but a naturalised American citizen.
> 
> In an interview when asked to comment on reports of recovery of two Pakistani passports from Faisal Shahzad, Qureshi said: I will have to check. I am not aware of that but I am aware that he is a naturalised American citizen, and the Government of Pakistan will cooperate with the United States and help them in whatever way we can.
> 
> He said Pakistan is serious in its probe into the Mumbai attacks. Hafiz Saeed was arrested but was later set free by the court in the absence of sufficient evidence.
> 
> Pakistan wants cordial relations with India and we will not let any terrorist outfit sabotage the process of dialogue between the two countries, the FM said.
> 
> He said he would invite Indian external minister to visit Pakistan for talks. Back channel diplomacy is of no use without front channel diplomacy, he added.


----------



## Skeptic

Are we not missing on another option: 

I dont think US will be pulling an Afghanistan like stunt on Pakistan - that certainly is out of question unless something even bigger and deadly than 9/11 happens with a clear Pakistan connection (which is again highly improbable). 
More likely is something which has been suggested by India several times - he dreaded term - SURGICAL STRIKES. Within Pakistan with much more sophisticated and deadlier crafts than the drones. 

GoP might be coerced into falling in line with Zardari acting as the escapegoat in the end of it. Taking up the blame for it. Pakistanis will receive another dose of - how Democracy is not meant for their nation (this might act as a bait to get Army on board as well). Millitary leadership would just be following orders from a democratically elected government. What say??

PS: S2 you are reading this - What do you think ?? Time we had a post from you. I see you reading this thread.


----------



## Windjammer

The US has all it's brick and motor stationed in Afghanistan not to mention the multi national ISAF forces. There is no restriction or limit on these forces on their area of operation nor there are any jurisdiction. Have they managed to contain the Talibans operations there. It is said that there is no Government authority beyond Kabul. Keeping these failures in mind, how will widening the operations in Pakistan help.
People seem too ignorant to acknowledge that in this WOT, Pakistani Forces suffered more casualties than all ISAF losses combined not to mention how the civilians are paying the price with almost daily bomb blasts in built up areas. People who matter are well aware of the fact and figures hence despite all the Indian desires, Pakistan will not be bombed back to the stone age. The Time Square incident is indeed condemnable but hey, it didn't stop Pakistan from getting on with life and flex it's military muscles as planned.


----------



## H2O3C4Nitrogen

> As anti-US lava spews from the fiery volcanoes of Pakistan&#8217;s private television channels and newspapers, a collective psychosis grips the country&#8217;s youth. Murderous intent follows with the conviction that the US is responsible for all ills, both in Pakistan and the world of Islam.
> 
> Faisal Shahzad, with designer sunglasses and an MBA degree from the University of Bridgeport, acquired that murderous intent. Living his formative years in Pakistan, he typifies the young Pakistani who grew up in the shadow of Ziaul Haq&#8217;s hate-based education curriculum. *The son of a retired air vice-marshal*, life was easy as was getting US citizenship subsequently. But at some point the toxic schooling and media tutoring must have kicked in.
> 
> There was guilt as he saw pictures of Gaza&#8217;s dead children and related them to US support for Israel. Internet browsing or, perhaps, the local mosque steered him towards the idea of an Islamic caliphate. This solution to the world&#8217;s problems would require, of course, the US to be destroyed. Hence Shahzad&#8217;s self-confessed trip to Waziristan.



Just cant believe that KS was a son of Air Marshal, somethings really fishy in it ..!!!


----------



## H2O3C4Nitrogen

> I am talking in the context of another attack on US being traced back to Pakistan. In which case the access to CAR will not be as immidate need for the US Govt as to show its populace, who today in its own misguided way equates most Pakistanis to terrorists, *some tangible action aka Afghanistan in 2001*
> 
> Is that the right approach.. Not at all.. But at that time, it wont matter. The biggest problem Pakistan has is that it can no longer control these TTP types as effectively as it did in past and has no way to gaurantee the absence of such an
> attack



The GOP and PA is fighting these terrorists, PA has lost many men, Its a fact that PA does not have the potential to neutralize a global terror network, But making that a basis to attack Pakistan can in noway be justified. Every day PA is loosing men while fighting these irhabists, If by the grave consequences she means that US will have justification to attack anybody anywhere inside Pakistan , then this kind of act in noway be tolerated by the PA and the Pakistani Public . Frankly speaking this is not going to happen, As the PA and GOP is serious in eradicating this menace...!!!


----------



## T-Faz

Hilary probably found out Qureshi was married and got angry, reminded her of this 







and she is venting out her anger at Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## karan.1970

T-Faz said:


> Hilary probably found out Qureshi was married and got angry, reminded her of this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and she is venting out her anger at Pakistan.



Dude.. you are good....


----------



## Johny D

Pakistan is country of good people (Obviously because of their Indian heritage)but spoiled by worst policies led by ISI...If Pakis leave only two things, one- tiff against India and second support to terrorist activities... it wud get to the list of best countries in Asia ...otherwise, it&#8217;s not too long when Pakistan will be officially controlled by the US led forces...In current scenario i don&#8217;t see any future for this country..plz dear friends don&#8217;t mind...but its a truth


----------



## Windjammer

JD_In said:


> Pakistan is country of good people (Obviously because of their Indian heritage)but spoiled by worst policies led by ISI...If Pakis leave only two things, one- tiff against India and second support to terrorist activities... it wud get to the list of best countries in Asia ...otherwise, its not too long when Pakistan will be officially controlled by the US led forces...In current scenario i dont see any future for this country..plz dear friends dont mind...but its a truth



Rest assured even when your Indian/Hindu mentality is being scoffed by the Ganges Turtles, your bewildered soul will still be twitching buttons on PDF, to find out and wonder WHERE DID IT ALL GO WRONG FOR YOU.


----------



## sur

ramu said:


> ...Yes Pakistan is expected to do more and act on terrorists on Pak soil.


Yep we do need to get all RAW/CIA agents local or outsider & *torture* them to slow-painful-death in public... & post videos of their killings on you-tube...


----------



## IceCold

deckingraj said:


> Well i do not think situation will be that grim however one can also not ignore the fact that you needed IMF bail out....Anyways let me share my thoughts on points...



We needed a bail out package because first there was a world wide economic plunge and second Pakistan was and is involved in WOT which is costing her dearly. Do you still think we will continue with it once US sanctions us?




> This is exactly what i am challenging....Let me share my thoughts as per points...
> 
> 1) Sorry to say but this is wishful thinking...What do you mean by "we have suffered them before and we can suffer them again"....Firstly you yourself is saying that you suffered during the time sanctions were put on...Secondly you are already assuming that sanctions would be lifted....whereas unless and until you don't agree to US terms you are going to be under Sanctions...Not only that it would be followed by Arms embargo and what not...Thirdly are'nt you missing India here??? At the time when her economy is booming, all the major defence dealers(Russia, US, Israel, EU) lining to sell state of art weapons it is suicide for Pakistan to come under any economic sanctions...
> 
> PAF has already lost a decage due to last Arms embargo viz-a-viz IAF and anything more would definitely be a deathning blow to your Parity....



By suffering i mean when Pakistan was put under sanctions during the 90s and then even more sanctions when we tested nuclear weapons. We survived. What makes you think we wont this time and i am not assuming that sanctions would be lifted anytime soon. As for PAF we dont need US for that anymore (JF-17, FC-20). Do you really think 18 handful of those F-16s is the only thing PAF is relying on?



> 2) Here you are relying on Chinese Veto...Not that i am implying that you all weather friend won't come in to help however just to given you an example China did not supported you stand during Kargil and when it comes to terrorism the pressure would be immense on them.... I must say you need to have steel balls to oppose a group consisting of both US and Russia...I hope you agree....



Kargil was a different story altogether. You cannot compare apples with oranges. Do i need to remind you that just before JUD was about to be declared a terrorist outfit China asked Pakistan what do they want? It was us who asked Chinese to back off during that otherwise JUD would never ever been declared a terrorist outfit. Here you are talking about a whole country, one with whom China has a long term strategic interest and partnership. It would be naive for anyone to believe otherwise.



> 3) Already said that on the facade your Parliament opposes these attacks...So for a common man these are happening without the consent of your political class...*Anyways did you just said that You would retaliate against Armed Offensive by America*?? I am sure you know about their capabilities....Sir with all due respect we are just third world contries and not even in our dreams can win an armed conflict against Americans...Any retaliation against Americans means long term destruction followed by years of instabality....



I did not speculated, it actually did happened before. Infact the situation became so tense that the US had to send its envoy to cool things down. The armed forces of Pakistan had clear orders to take down anything that violates Pakistans airspace. Why do you think none of those cowboys style stunts were never performed again by the US after that incident and now there is more cooperation and more intelligence sharing w.r.t drone attacks. 




> It would better to join them and get rid of terrorist who are hell bent of bringing Pakistan to the verge of collapse instead of retaliating to American onslaught.....please don't mind but such talks about retaliation make sense when the opposing Party is India but when American's are your opposing party either agree with them or be ready to become another Iraq....



Not without a heavy price and US is in no position to make Pakistan another iraq, just look at the economy, do you really think they are going to risk it all and go for an all out war with Pakistan. There is no chest thumping, i am stating plain hardcore facts. At most what we can expect is US will ask India to mobilize its forces on the border to built pressure on Pakistan or even initiate a limited conflict but in doing so it will bring a whole set of new problems for the allies in Afghanistan as it will give Pakistan the legal justification to withdraw all its forces and place it on with India. As for the border with Afghanistan, Taliban will take care of that once Pakistan starts to look the other way.


----------



## Parashuram1

> I did not speculated, it actually did happened before. Infact the situation became so tense that the US had to send its envoy to cool things down. The armed forces of Pakistan had clear orders to take down anything that violates Pakistans airspace. Why do you think none of those cowboys style stunts were never performed again by the US after that incident and now there is more cooperation and more intelligence sharing w.r.t drone attacks.





> Not without a heavy price and US is in no position to make Pakistan another iraq, just look at the economy, do you really think they are going to risk it all and go for an all out war with Pakistan. There is no chest thumping, i am stating plain hardcore facts. At most what we can expect is US will ask India to mobilize its forces on the border to built pressure on Pakistan or even initiate a limited conflict but in doing so it will bring a whole set of new problems for the allies in Afghanistan as it will give Pakistan the legal justification to withdraw all its forces and place it on with India. As for the border with Afghanistan, Taliban will take care of that once Pakistan starts to look the other way.



Sir, the simple reason why United States did not consider taking the aggressive stance against your is not because it was scared of your military, but because they ran short of strategic space in Asia. It would have been a different ball game had the Pentagon got bases in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The only constraint that United States Armed Forces have now is to withdraw from one of the other two places that are being ravaged by militants. Seriously, even a child should know the world's sole superpower is only employing different strategies to see which one is the best---something which only it can afford and not like other countries that stick to one plan. As someone on this forum said wisely a few days back-- if the United States goes on a full fury mode war with another country, God help them as it won't take them more than a few weeks to flatten their adversary beyond recognition.

Why would United States order India to launch an invasion into your territory? India is neither a part of NATO nor is a volunteer to the ISAF task force either in Afghanistan or Iraq and is more or less a neutral party. While excellent diplomatic relationship exists between the two, There has never been an instance noticed where either of the countries have taken military action against a third country for the sake of the other, establishing India to be a militarily-neutral country. 

United States alone has the world largest navy, world's largest air force and world third largest standing army with a defense budget that dwarfs the following 15 countries' defense budgets combined. A permanent member of the UN Security Council and a leader of many world organizations and alliances, do you honestly think that they cannot take unilateral military action if their national security is at an increased threat? 

An act of war at the most in your borders would not be directed towards your government but rather towards terrorist hideouts. However, do you not think that military action directed by Pakistani state against American forces, would give the impression that your government supports and protects these militants? Won't it ruin all the efforts that your soldiers have put in to launch attacks against terrorists themselves? Please think with a cool mind what you have said earlier.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## IceCold

Parashuram1 said:


> Sir, *the simple reason why United States did not consider taking the aggressive stance against your is not because it was scared of your military*, but because they ran short of strategic space in Asia. It would have been a different ball game had the Pentagon got bases in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The only constraint that United States Armed Forces have now is to withdraw from one of the other two places that are being ravaged by militants. Seriously, even a child should know the world's sole superpower is only employing different strategies to see which one is the best---something which only it can afford and not like other countries that stick to one plan. As someone on this forum said wisely a few days back-- if the United States goes on a full fury mode war with another country, God help them as it won't take them more than a few weeks to flatten their adversary beyond recognition.
> 
> Why would United States order India to launch an invasion into your territory? India is neither a part of NATO nor is a volunteer to the ISAF task force either in Afghanistan or Iraq and is more or less a neutral party. While excellent diplomatic relationship exists between the two, There has never been an instance noticed where either of the countries have taken military action against a third country for the sake of the other, establishing India to be a militarily-neutral country.
> 
> United States alone has the world largest navy, world's largest air force and world third largest standing army with a defense budget that dwarfs the following 15 countries' defense budgets combined. A permanent member of the UN Security Council and a leader of many world organizations and alliances, do you honestly think that they cannot take unilateral military action if their national security is at an increased threat?
> 
> An act of war at the most in your borders would not be directed towards your government but rather towards terrorist hideouts. However, do you not think that military action directed by Pakistani state against American forces, would give the impression that your government supports and protects these militants? Won't it ruin all the efforts that your soldiers have put in to launch attacks against terrorists themselves? Please think with a cool mind what you have said earlier.



Where did i said US is afraid of our military, can you point out one single instance. 
I pointed out the same things but with different reasons that US is in no position to attack Pakistan 1) its already heavily engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan 2) economy and 3) If Pakistan backs off from the support there will be a whole new set of problems for the US and NATO troops not to forget that much of NATO supplies go through Pakistan.
So its not about US being a sole super power but a simple fact that for now odds don't favor US to attack another country.

Also whether you consider or not Pakistan has a 700000 strong army properly equipped to fight a conventional warfare backed by an air force and navy. And believe me when i say this and any Indian solider will testify to what i am saying, Pakistan army is no push over.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## All-Green

Parashuram1 said:


> Sir, the simple reason why United States did not consider taking the aggressive stance against your is not because it was scared of your military, but because they ran short of strategic space in Asia. It would have been a different ball game had the Pentagon got bases in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The only constraint that United States Armed Forces have now is to withdraw from one of the other two places that are being ravaged by militants. Seriously, even a child should know the world's sole superpower is only employing different strategies to see which one is the best---something which only it can afford and not like other countries that stick to one plan. As someone on this forum said wisely a few days back-- if the United States goes on a full fury mode war with another country, God help them as it won't take them more than a few weeks to flatten their adversary beyond recognition.
> 
> Why would United States order India to launch an invasion into your territory? India is neither a part of NATO nor is a volunteer to the ISAF task force either in Afghanistan or Iraq and is more or less a neutral party. While excellent diplomatic relationship exists between the two, There has never been an instance noticed where either of the countries have taken military action against a third country for the sake of the other, establishing India to be a militarily-neutral country.
> 
> United States alone has the world largest navy, world's largest air force and world third largest standing army with a defense budget that dwarfs the following 15 countries' defense budgets combined. A permanent member of the UN Security Council and a leader of many world organizations and alliances, do you honestly think that they cannot take unilateral military action if their national security is at an increased threat?
> 
> *An act of war at the most in your borders would not be directed towards your government but rather towards terrorist hideouts. **However, do you not think that military action directed by Pakistani state against American forces, would give the impression that your government supports and protects these militants? Won't it ruin all the efforts that your soldiers have put in to launch attacks against terrorists themselves?* Please think with a cool mind what you have said earlier.



Pakistan will care naught for the negative impression which any uneducated fool would take from its opposition to US boots on ground, only a fool would consider this as something intentionally done by Pakistan to help the terrorists.

Pakistan will oppose such a move because Pakistan Army openly operating in FATA is also something unprecedented and not easy.
We cannot allow such a thing to happen or we lose any prestige and trust we have gained in the eyes of the local Pakistani Tribesmen, the things which are much more important to win here than the most modern weapons.

It has taken Pakistan a total bloodbath to convince a majority of population that we need to take on the terrorists for our own good and not to help the USA conquer Afghanistan since all hell broke loose only after US invasion.
It has taken a huge cost for us to convince many people that this is not a game.
*If* USA puts boots on the ground in FATA then this thing shall be exploited by the terrorists to devastating effect; with or without Pakistan opposing such a move.

It will not be akin to Pakistan opposing USA for the sake of terrorists but rather USA openly defying Pakistani sentiments and making our operations a joke that is a cause for concern here (*if *USA presses for this and decides to do this).
Such an act will do nothing but serve the terrorists since Pakistan cannot let it all pass, *if* it happens.

Pakistan is taking action openly in the most toughest terrain possible and we have lost a lot of good men in the process, not to mention the colossal innocent civilian losses as a price for taking this hydra on with utmost seriousness.
However it is not a matter of US boots on ground that shall tilt the balance, it is a matter of time and the relationship with the Tribals that will eventually tilt the balance, USA will ruin this if it attempts such a maverick operation.

I do not think USA can afford to do this from logical perspective and in light of a close relationship which it wants to build with Pakistan.
If USA pressurizes our Government in this, i am afraid all Pakistanis will doubt the intentions of USA and resulting unrest will ensure that our successes against the Terrorists will be for naught. 
If logic is thrown out of the window then USA can even attack China for that matter, however the cost for such an adventure is not something similar to Afghanistan or Iraq.

I really doubt USA would ever do this.
However for you to suggest that it is directed against the terrorists so nothing to worry about for Pakistan is not correct.
Drones are a different matter since they provide much more flexibility and staying power, still they remain highly unpopular despite any reasoning due to the fact that it is seen as USA directly acting in Pakistani airspace...why would USA want to add another major reason for unrest that will unhinge the whole operation?
Unless USA wishes to unhinge the whole operation, it would not press Pakistan for boots on ground.
The job of boots on ground can be done better here by Pakistan which also maintains excellent troops who are on the hunt for the terrorists.
From sovereignty point of view, even if our troops are inferior, we reserve the right to refuse any particular type of help.

What we expect from USA is to keep manning its posts along the Pakistan Afghanistan border...we are the hammer here and USA should be the anvil...if the intent is really to go after terrorists.
If the intent is something other than this, anything can happen.

A conflict between USA and Pakistan would tenfold increase the threat to USA's national security from unconventional means.
Reason for this is that in case of such a conflict USA would grant an unprecedented recruitment bonus to the terrorists and supporting militants who will spread everywhere in such a huge landmass and threaten the entire region.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## FreekiN

First, Hillary was paranoid about a Al Qaeda/Taliban takeover of nuclear assets.

Second, she goes on about 'Pakistan is not doing enough in WoT'

Third, she falls in love with our Foreign Minister.

Fourth, visits Pakistan and complains that Pakistani officials do not have any idea about where Al Qaeda is.

Fifth, Pakistani expat convicted of terrorism. Hillary speculates that Pakistani officials do know where Al Qaeda is. 

Sixth, we lol.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## deckingraj

IceCold said:


> We needed a bail out package because first there was a world wide economic plunge and second Pakistan was and is involved in WOT which is costing her dearly. Do you still think we will continue with it once US sanctions us?



Sir whatever be the reasons i was just pointing out that you needed a bail out...In other words saying that we can survive economic sanctions is a bit over statement because as of Now your economy is in bad shape and any economic sanctions would be a deathning blow....

Also saying that operations in WOT is one of the prime reasons for your sorry state of economy then i would say you are taking overly simplistic analysis...However i would let it go...because ground reality will not change as far as economy is concerned no matter what are the reasons....




> By suffering i mean when Pakistan was put under sanctions during the 90s and then even more sanctions when we tested nuclear weapons. We survived. What makes you think we wont this time and i am not assuming that sanctions would be lifted anytime soon.



Man...why it is so hard to understand the point i am making....Anyways lets try another thing ...Explain me how you think under this economy you will survive economic sanctions...May be i would learn a few things from you...




> As for PAF we dont need US for that anymore (JF-17, FC-20). Do you really think 18 handful of those F-16s is the only thing PAF is relying on?



Are you kidding me???? F16's are your prime fighters and JF-17(yet to be inducted) are mere supporting roles...We are talking about today's situation and not something 5-10 years from now....Please Let's not post silly things just to prove a point....JF-17 might give you a pride but the fighter still needs lot of work to make it potent....French Avionics for now is on hold and you are still looking for an alternative....




> Kargil was a different story altogether. You cannot compare apples with oranges. Do i need to remind you that just before JUD was about to be declared a terrorist outfit China asked Pakistan what do they want? It was us who asked Chinese to back off during that otherwise JUD would never ever been declared a terrorist outfit. Here you are talking about a whole country, one with whom China has a long term strategic interest and partnership. It would be naive for anyone to believe otherwise.



I am sorry to say but i am losing hope that i would be able to show you light....I am not sure why you are so convinced about things which are defying logic....

a) ON ground Kargil was far more important for Pakistan then banning JUD...So its not like comparing Oranges and Apples...Its like what China will/can do when there is a strong international opinion against you.....In international arena organizations just cannot say "Screw you!!! they are my friends no matter what"....

b) So you are saying you let JUD banned....Though off topic but interesting that Pakistan let an organization which is a charity organization(Pak POV) banned....Not sure if you can but would like to see some reputable links proving the same...




> I did not speculated, it actually did happened before. Infact the situation became so tense that the US had to send its envoy to cool things down. The armed forces of Pakistan had clear orders to take down anything that violates Pakistans airspace. Why do you think none of those cowboys style stunts were never performed again by the US after that incident and now there is more cooperation and more intelligence sharing w.r.t drone attacks.



Sir understand the basic difference here....Its the need of the situation...Let me repeat what i said in my first post...If there is any succesful terror strike in US there would be need for a tangible action...I am sure then cowboys style stunts will haunt you then...



> Not without a heavy price and US is in no position to make Pakistan another iraq,


Explain to me on military terms how can you take on US....What possible damage you can do to them....Mind it i am asking Pakistan Military might vs US military might... 



> just look at the economy, do you really think they are going to risk it all and go for an all out war with Pakistan.


An all out war with Pakistan is going to be damn easy...Irony is on side you claim that Pak can sustain economic sanctions even in this sorry state of economy however US cannot sustain another war because of her economy....Also what about you...Would you be able to sustain any attack on Pakistan???



> There is no chest thumping, i am stating plain hardcore facts. At most what we can expect is US will ask India to mobilize its forces on the border to built pressure on Pakistan or even initiate a limited conflict but in doing so it will bring a whole set of new problems for the allies in Afghanistan as it will give Pakistan the legal justification to withdraw all its forces and place it on with India. As for the border with Afghanistan, Taliban will take care of that once Pakistan starts to look the other way.



This one was the most amazing logic that you come up with...As if India is US pawn and will mobilize her Army at the very order of US....Please give me one incident in our history where we mobilized our troops on anybody's order....


----------



## RescueRanger

Al Jazeera English - RIZ KHAN - Pakistan's political landscape

Need i say more?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ouiouiouiouiouioui

Well Well Well..........A thin red Line.......

Will Pakistan be next Afganistan.....a few more Pakistani bombers in New York Times Square and i bet Uncle Sam will be seeing someoNE.....

and the Nuclear threat will also not go as Uncle Sam has more than 5000 in his Pocket...who will save........from Uncle's Sam's fury...its time that pakistani youth shud be guided in a proper manner otherwise these guys fall in wrong hand and end up making a brand terrorist...perhaps its the time that people in pakistan shoud shred all those people who teach and spread hatred....otherwise these youths being a finanical or business consultant end up being a terrorist.....perhaps worst a pakistani born terrorist....tarnishing pakistan image globally.....


----------



## ouiouiouiouiouioui

What has happened to pakistan' youth......this latest pakistan born terrorist..was doing good and suddenly fcuk*d up ...so much of hatred and extremist...it's real hard time for all pakistani living outside....now there is a doubt and these pakistani persons are living under fear.....and for all Federal and european Airports...pakistani passports will bear heaviness on minds of everybody...people might think that a guy living next door a pakistani.....is a terrorist.......that is relly bad...and i really feel pity


----------



## Parashuram1

> Where did i said US is afraid of our military, can you point out one single instance.
> I pointed out the same things but with different reasons that US is in no position to attack Pakistan 1) its already heavily engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan 2) economy and 3) If Pakistan backs off from the support there will be a whole new set of problems for the US and NATO troops not to forget that much of NATO supplies go through Pakistan.
> So its not about US being a sole super power but a simple fact that for now odds don't favor US to attack another country.



Your statement implied that If I may, does the following statement not kind of say it:

*"Not without a heavy price and US is in no position"*



> Also whether you consider or not Pakistan has a 700000 strong army properly equipped to fight a conventional warfare backed by an air force and navy. And believe me when i say this and any Indian solider will testify to what i am saying, Pakistan army is no push over.




Pakistan might be a strong military force for all I know (which is limited when it comes to the military might of countries in your region), but why are you bringing the Indians in this context? Indians don't have an economy of US$13 trillion, don't have the largest air force and Navy, don't have 11 super carriers, don't have the stealthiest submarines on the planet of their own, don't have an entire array of intel satellites at their command yet, don't have a fleet of armed-to-teeth cutting edge strike drones of their own and finally, don't have a defense budget of US$ 600+ billion annually.

So why even bring them into the equation? Your conflict with your larger neighbour has been fought under a completely different set of circumstances than what you would be possibly fighting with United States (Heavens forbid that such a war should ever happen).


----------



## Parashuram1

ouiouiouiouiouioui said:


> Well Well Well..........A thin red Line.......
> 
> Will Pakistan be next Afganistan.....a few more Pakistani bombers in New York Times Square and i bet Uncle Sam will be seeing someoNE.....
> 
> and the Nuclear threat will also not go as Uncle Sam has more than 5000 in his Pocket...who will save........from Uncle's Sam's fury...its time that pakistani youth shud be guided in a proper manner otherwise these guys fall in wrong hand and end up making a brand terrorist...perhaps its the time that people in pakistan shoud shred all those people who teach and spread hatred....otherwise these youths being a finanical or business consultant end up being a terrorist.....perhaps worst a pakistani born terrorist....tarnishing pakistan image globally.....


Priez pour que cette situation n'arrive pas.


----------



## TaimiKhan

RescueRanger said:


> Al Jazeera English - RIZ KHAN - Pakistan's political landscape
> 
> Need i say more?



Excellent discussion and excellent and thoughtful analysis put forward by all the participants.

Hearing what the Ex-CIA guy said was surprising for me, as haven't seen Americans with such views, but they are were very accurate and understood the core issue and the problems being faced. 

Thanks.


----------



## naveed qaiser

The accused, Faisal Shahzad, is a naturalised American citizen of Pakistani origin. I think that there was a double game going on in the previous years, where we got a lot of lip-service but very little produced, was how Ms Clinton described the previous regimes double-faced stance on taking out the militants. She appreciated the incumbent governments cooperation and commitment in war against terror however her warning seems irrational and out of context. Pakistan is front line ally in war on terror and rendered many sacrifices, and the incumbent Government proved that it wants total eradication of militancy. However Mr Shahzads links to the Pakistani Taliban and in particular his reported training in North Waziristan has made it incumbent on us that we do not sit back complacently otherwise US has number of options It can bomb North Waziristan itself, intensify the drone attacks, bring boots on the ground, or declare war against Pakistan in the worst-case scenario. We cannot afford any of these options given how heavily dependent we are on American aid, both economic and military. Thus there is no need to be get sentimental on what Hilary Clinton said, but we need thinking to get rid of this menace completely.


----------



## deckingraj

naveed qaiser said:


> The accused, Faisal Shahzad, is a naturalised American citizen of Pakistani origin. I think that there was a double game going on in the previous years, where we got a lot of lip-service but very little produced, was how Ms Clinton described the previous regime&#8217;s double-faced stance on taking out the militants. She appreciated the incumbent government&#8217;s cooperation and commitment in war against terror however her warning seems irrational and out of context. Pakistan is front line ally in war on terror and rendered many sacrifices, and the incumbent Government proved that it wants total eradication of militancy. However Mr Shahzad&#8217;s links to the Pakistani Taliban and in particular his reported training in North Waziristan has made it incumbent on us that we do not sit back complacently otherwise US has number of options It can bomb North Waziristan itself, intensify the drone attacks, bring boots on the ground, or declare war against Pakistan in the worst-case scenario. *We cannot afford any of these options given how heavily dependent we are on American aid, both economic and military.* Thus there is no need to be get sentimental on what Hilary Clinton said, but we need thinking to get rid of this menace completely.




Bolded part sums up the maturity that you have to take on sensitive issues...I understand the patriotism but jingoism will not help either as the case with some friends here...So there is nothing wrong in accepting the ground reality and carving a strategy to work out the situation....

Kudos to you


----------



## IceCold

deckingraj said:


> Sir whatever be the reasons i was just pointing out that you needed a bail out...In other words saying that we can survive economic sanctions is a bit over statement because as of Now your economy is in bad shape and any economic sanctions would be a deathning blow...
> 
> Also saying that operations in WOT is one of the prime reasons for your sorry state of economy then i would say you are taking overly simplistic analysis...However i would let it go...because ground reality will not change as far as economy is concerned no matter what are the reasons....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man...why it is so hard to understand the point i am making....Anyways lets try another thing ...Explain me how you think under this economy you will survive economic sanctions...May be i would learn a few things from you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding me???? F16's are your prime fighters and JF-17(yet to be inducted) are mere supporting roles...We are talking about today's situation and not something 5-10 years from now....Please Let's not post silly things just to prove a point....JF-17 might give you a pride but the fighter still needs lot of work to make it potent....French Avionics for now is on hold and you are still looking for an alternative....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry to say but i am losing hope that i would be able to show you light....I am not sure why you are so convinced about things which are defying logic....
> 
> a) ON ground Kargil was far more important for Pakistan then banning JUD...So its not like comparing Oranges and Apples...Its like what China will/can do when there is a strong international opinion against you.....In international arena organizations just cannot say "Screw you!!! they are my friends no matter what"....
> 
> b) So you are saying you let JUD banned....Though off topic but interesting that Pakistan let an organization which is a charity organization(Pak POV) banned....Not sure if you can but would like to see some reputable links proving the same...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sir understand the basic difference here....Its the need of the situation...Let me repeat what i said in my first post...If there is any succesful terror strike in US there would be need for a tangible action...I am sure then cowboys style stunts will haunt you then...
> 
> 
> Explain to me on military terms how can you take on US....What possible damage you can do to them....Mind it i am asking Pakistan Military might vs US military might...
> 
> 
> An all out war with Pakistan is going to be damn easy...Irony is on side you claim that Pak can sustain economic sanctions even in this sorry state of economy however US cannot sustain another war because of her economy....Also what about you...Would you be able to sustain any attack on Pakistan???
> 
> 
> 
> This one was the most amazing logic that you come up with...As if India is US pawn and will mobilize her Army at the very order of US....Please give me one incident in our history where we mobilized our troops on anybody's order....



None of your argument holds any value because everything that you say is based on mere assumptions on your part which are all made up in your mind as a result of seeing Pakistan constantly from an Indian prism. My suggestion to you should be to come out of the shell and see the reality for what it is and not what you think it is. Times have changed.
Moreover you are beating around the same bush over and over again for which I have already answered your questions and hence no need for me to further chase you in circles. Hope you understand let us all agree to disagree.


----------



## IceCold

Parashuram1 said:


> Your statement implied that If I may, does the following statement not kind of say it:
> 
> *"Not without a heavy price and US is in no position"*



Not really in fact you took the complete opposite meaning of what i meant by heavy price. Heavy price for Pakistan when Dekinraj said "It would better to join them and get rid of terrorist who are hell bent of bringing Pakistan to the verge of collapse instead of retaliating to American onslaught", i said not without a heavy price and indeed we payed a very heavy price and which by the way holds no value as far as the US is concerned. Hope i have made myself clear.


----------



## Parashuram1

IceCold said:


> Not really in fact you took the complete opposite meaning of what i meant by heavy price. Heavy price for Pakistan when Dekinraj said "It would better to join them and get rid of terrorist who are hell bent of bringing Pakistan to the verge of collapse instead of retaliating to American onslaught", i said not without a heavy price and indeed we payed a very heavy price and which by the way holds no value as far as the US is concerned. Hope i have made myself clear.


Thank you for clearing. I don't think it is a bad idea if Pakistani government authorizes a joint-combat operations. The benefits would be multi-fold: direct access to use American weaponry, distributed workload etc.

Please don't tell me there is going to be internal pressure. Why should there be? Technically, the United States would be legally operating alongside Pakistani forces and therefore there would not be any illegal trespassing into your borders.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Parashuram1 said:


> Thank you for clearing. I don't think it is a bad idea if Pakistani government authorizes a joint-combat operations. The benefits would be multi-fold: direct access to use American weaponry, distributed workload etc.
> 
> Please don't tell me there is going to be internal pressure. Why should there be? Technically, the United States would be legally operating alongside Pakistani forces and therefore there would not be any illegal trespassing into your borders.



Joint combat operations would be a PR disaster and invite a lot of criticizm from across Pakistan and add an additional means of propaganda for the militants.

In essence, undermine everything a successful COIN is supposed to build upon - local support, denial of propaganda space to the militants etc.

Hence an unfeasible proposition and one extremely unlikely to be taken up.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TaimiKhan

Parashuram1 said:


> Thank you for clearing. I don't think it is a bad idea if Pakistani government authorizes a joint-combat operations. The benefits would be multi-fold: direct access to use American weaponry, distributed workload etc.
> 
> Please don't tell me there is going to be internal pressure. Why should there be? Technically, the United States would be legally operating alongside Pakistani forces and therefore there would not be any illegal trespassing into your borders.



Why joint operations ?? With whatever we have, we have done more effectively and efficiently compared to US & NATO forces in their last 10 years of occupation. 

We were ineffective as we had no training initially in COIN operations, but we have turned the tables and now our formations are well trained for COIN operations and they have learned a lot and put that learning in their recent operations and have earned huge successes compared to US and NATO even though equipped with state of the art weapon systems and reconnaissance, surveillance equipment . 

Instead of advocating for joint operations, would be better if US forces can take care of their own side of the border instead of leaving their border posts and emptying valleys at the crucial time when our forces move in the border areas and the militants from this side of the border go and take refuge on the US controlled side, where they are not harmed even a single bit and they are rearmed and given refuge by the Afghans.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## H2O3C4Nitrogen

shift delete


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Nothing to watch ppl move on ... same old thread ... moving onwards


----------



## SSGPA1

Here is the 'indirect' response from Gen. Musharraf

I am a Pakistani and proud of it! We must never be apologetic of our great country in times of trouble. Just because Pakistan is going through an unfortunate phase, we must stand by it and fight for it's overall well being and the safety of our people. The world must understand that we are the biggest victims of terrorism and yet we shall fight for what is correct-Pakistan First!

Pervez Musharraf I am a Pakistani and proud of it! We must never be apologetic of our great country in times of trouble. Just because Pakistan is going through an unfortunate phase, we must stand by it and fight for it&#039;s overall well being and t


----------



## Paksindhi

Pakistani Man said:


> I appreciate this warning to the Pakistani Government. This should force Zardari to everything in his power to eliminate these terrorists. It will be good for Pakistan and the U.S.A.



Can u pls change ur AVATAR it does'nt suits you.


----------



## fatman17

*COMMENT: The Clinton statement* &#8212;Shahzad Chaudhry 

 The total deaths of Pakistanis in this war against terror amount to around 27,000. And yet some question the ownership of this war? Secretary Clinton may have many reasons for her frustrations but that can never include Pakistan&#8217;s lack of commitment, paid for in blood

When Faisal Shahzad attempted that crude adventure to light a fireball in Times Square, the most likely beneficiary through relative gains was thought to be India, since Pakistan&#8217;s loss is translated easily as India&#8217;s gain. Preet Bharara, the naturalised Indian-American legal expert of New York City, at least, would have us believe so with an almost reflexive pronouncement of the Pakistani state&#8217;s culpability. The one to, however, totally lose her equanimity was the variously hallowed Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. 

Threatening Pakistan with unbearable consequences of actions that would take shape in the coming days, the lady resorted to unacceptable crudity. Just a month back, as she hobnobbed with Pakistan&#8217;s foreign minister and set forth the seriousness in the &#8216;strategic dialogue&#8217;, she appeared to be giving a slightly deeper meaning to the term strategic. It has been my refrain though for a long time that the durational definition of the term strategic in the US-Pakistan context is never longer than five years; 10 years would be grand strategy. So short would be the US cover has come as a surprise to even the most ardent of US haters. 

Some things have not been right with Mrs Clinton. Recent reports suggest she is not inside President Obama&#8217;s closest circles, that she took her time finding comfort in working with him &#8212; as late as the Environment Summit in Copenhagen &#8212; and, in some cases, the president&#8217;s office has assumed direct control of policy and translation of the president&#8217;s intent in the foreign policy domain, particularly in the interest to allay Muslim apprehensions. Her nominee and point man on Pakistan and Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, has been practically sidelined under presidential preference and has actively been seeking avenues outside the government, in anticipation. The president&#8217;s other interest in foreign policy, the Israeli-Palestinian equation, is tended to by George Mitchell. The president&#8217;s own disposition to Israeli arrogance is well established and does not gel with Mrs Clinton&#8217;s world view on the same issue. Remember, she is heavily dependent on the support of a large Jewish and Indian lobby in New York for her political relevance and has favours to return. She has herself stated that she does not see herself lasting out President Obama&#8217;s entire first term. She has also determined that she may not have what it takes to fight another election for president. The lady is quite obviously out of sorts, despite the gloss.

Life in the Washington Beltway, they say, is hard. Frustrations are many and one may soon lose the needed focus. Could this explain her outburst, especially since this is in direct contrast with what both the secretary of defence and his generals have tended to convey when commenting on the near incident? Bob Gates was measured in his qualification of Clinton&#8217;s aggressive statement: not only were the Pakistanis in the front seat in their own war against the TTP, they could ask for any type of support from the US to aid their effort. Notice the difference? General Patraeus brushed aside any questions of commitment and will on the part of the Pakistanis; he quoted the heavy price that Pakistan has already paid in its bid to cleanse its surroundings. The Pakistan Army has lost over 2,700 men, perhaps even 3,000, in this war against terror, which is more than what Pakistan lost in the 1965 War against India. Who would ever question Pakistan&#8217;s resolve to fight terror against such clear and obvious facts? The total deaths of Pakistanis in this war against terror amount to around 27,000. And yet some question the ownership of this war? Secretary Clinton may have many reasons for her frustrations but that can never include Pakistan&#8217;s lack of commitment, paid for in blood.

Make no mistake, there is a lot more to do in Pakistan. We have yet to garner a discernible, integrated, comprehensive way out of our current muddle, and little is forthcoming. We have to recover our lost potential and promise in economic terms and a better social direction and more integrated and complementary societal coexistence. We still need to figure out a way to bring closure to this current war and define the endgame with clearly delineated objectives against a time-line. But for someone of Mrs Clinton&#8217;s stature to pronounce the Pakistani state and people&#8217;s culpability for a crude individual act in the US, is extending the argument far beyond reason. Hillary Clinton has lost the mileage she covered in Pakistan when she visited last and has wasted the capital she diligently cultivated. Hillary Clinton&#8217;s worldview is incongruent with that of the Pakistanis and is in need of serious repair. Perhaps it is her job to act the bad cop and perhaps she arrogates too much to herself.

In conducting diplomacy, it is instructive to study societal responses in various testing conditions. The Americans become paranoid about their safety, leading them at times to dehumanise all else for their own survival. The Indians are careful teasers of an environment and test the waters fully before they jump right in, mostly exaggerating their sense of self-assurance thereon, but remain steadfastly deliberate. The Pakistanis are a strange brand. There is not a nation that has seen so much adversity in the last six decades, each time raising the fears of a state ready to fold, and yet it lumbers on, sometimes recovering stronger than the original &#8212; resilient you might even call it. They have staved off a living and existential danger in India since inception, a nation as big and large in relative terms as the US, and a more persistent threat. Even if the US were to convert itself to the same status as India from the existing &#8212; courtesy Mrs Clinton&#8217;s efforts &#8212; it shall still be in desperate need of support in her primary agenda to neutralise the terrorists that haunt Americans at home. The US will still seek partners to stabilise Afghanistan before it can beat a retreat and, with some prognostication, still remains in the need to remain cooperatively engaged in the pursuit of abiding interests in the region and specifically in Pakistan. The Pakistanis will live through an inimical US as well, but one doubts whether the US may be able to gain what it intends to without Pakistan&#8217;s support. Not without reason then that President Obama and his men have been working overtime in damage control following the Clinton statement. 

Hillary Clinton has done no service to herself, her nation, or to the Pak-US relationship in uttering the nonsensical. This has been the most damaging single act, defeating by miles Faisal Shahzad&#8217;s misadventure. The Pakistani state must urgently engage the US on the implications of such provocative pronouncements. The earlier Hillary Clinton repairs the damage, the better it is for our joint cause of fighting the menace of terrorism. Or else, the other side and all their kin shall have the last laugh.

Shahzad Chaudhry is a retired air vice marshal and a former ambassador

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Contrarian

Same old tripe...India bogeyman..We have had wars with India, existential threat, etc, etc

Conveniently forgetting that 'to do more' is more to do with Pakistan's lack of will in going against the Talibs because of Pakistani agencies proximity to them.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## fatman17

malaymishra123 said:


> Same old tripe...India bogeyman..We have had wars with India, existential threat, etc, etc
> 
> *Conveniently forgetting that 'to do more' is more to do with Pakistan's lack of will in going against the Talibs because of Pakistani agencies proximity to them.*



dissapointing coming from you!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaimiKhan

malaymishra123 said:


> Same old tripe...India bogeyman..We have had wars with India, existential threat, etc, etc
> 
> Conveniently forgetting that 'to do more' is more to do with Pakistan's lack of will in going against the Talibs because of Pakistani agencies proximity to them.



The answer to such questions is not in the capability of you, me or other key board analysts on this forum. 

People with inside knowledge, rather to be exact, the people engaged in the spy business know well what are the true reasons for supporting such Talibans. 

Hope you get the idea, and as for India, well our past and present is a good way of analyzing things that what each country wants for each other and will do to each other the moment it gets the opportunity. 

So don't think India is that innocent to let go any opportunity coming its way through which it can use to destroy, weaken Pakistan. 

This is what India had done, this is what it will do in future, even if it involves using the soil of another country, and same will be the act of Pakistan, to not let go in waste any opportunity to hurt India and its interests. 

And for that reason Afghanistan comes into play, India will not let go the opportunity to use Afghanistan is weakening Pakistan or creating troubles for it, and Pakistan for its part knowing the true intentions of India and some other countries, will not let go the Taliban, as they serve as the last line of defence in countering some bad willed ambitions by some.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## FreekiN

Can we change the thread's name? It is misleading.


----------



## gajju

"When the time comes, we will die with honour"


----------

