What's new

Reconstructing the American coup. ( Role of local collaborators the local collaborators).

Clutch

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 3, 2008
14,524
5
20,935
June 6 ( The major instigator)

CIA chief Burns visits Pakistan and is refused bases. IK refuses to meet CIA chief aswell.



June 9.

IK says absolutely not in axios interview.



PHASE 1.

September 7.


Major transfers and postings in army.

Many names are connected especially a specific name coming again and again in relation to managing courts.



October 6. (The last key phase 1 and extremely critical as mentioned by IK)

DG ISI changed.

View attachment 841365
View attachment 841321




PHASE 2. ( Cannot happen without the completion of phase 1 especially DG ISI )

October 15.


American Charge of Affairs in Pakistan meets Shehbaz Sharif and Maryam Nawaz in a single day. The coming days/months showed extraordinary meetings at a rapid pace of Americans embassy staff in Pakistan with local law makers especially munharif arakeen of no importance ( probably the first such interaction with the likes of noor alam khan and Raja Riaz etc)

October 23.

US nearing a formal agreement. IK the roadblock.








Feb 24. ( The last nail )

PM Imran Khan Russia visit.



March 8 / March 27 ( disclosed to public) cipher / meeting minutes.

Clearly mentioned Vote of no confidence in advance. A direct interference/threat communicated.

'If IK is not removed than there will be consequences and if VONC succeeds than all will be forgiven'.
'We will take the issue head on'.

( IK made the scapegoat as later on it was admitted that he took Bajwa in confidence but he was mentioned as the sole character responsible for Russia visit)

March 16.

Shehbaz Sharif, PM IK should not have said absolutely not.



March 29.

Asad umar press conference. Letter contents. ( NAWAZ sharif involvement)


Maryam Nawaz and Rana Sanaullah accept that NAWAZ sharif holding meetings outside.

( Nawaz Sharif was the major player).


I will review this post and will be adding further events in the timeline.
Excellent synopsis
 

fatman17

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Apr 24, 2007
31,286
88
37,391
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Blood in the Sand

Jeffrey D. Sachs | August 17, 2021 | Project Syndicate

For decades, the American political class has intervened relentlessly and recklessly in countries whose people they hold in contempt. And once again they are being aided by America’s credulous mass media, which is uniformly blaming the Taliban victory on Afghanistan’s incorrigible corruption.

NEW YORK – The magnitude of the United States’ failure in Afghanistan is breathtaking. It is not a failure of Democrats or Republicans, but an abiding failure of American political culture, reflected in US policymakers’ lack of interest in understanding different societies. And it is all too typical.

Almost every modern US military intervention in the developing world has come to rot. It’s hard to think of an exception since the Korean War. In the 1960s and first half of the 1970s, the US fought in Indochina – Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia – eventually withdrawing in defeat after a decade of grotesque carnage. President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, and his successor, the Republican Richard Nixon, share the blame.

In roughly the same years, the US installed dictators throughout Latin America and parts of Africa, with disastrous consequences that lasted decades. Think of the Mobutu dictatorship in the Democratic Republic of Congo after the CIA-backed assassination of Patrice Lumumba in early 1961, or of General Augusto Pinochet’s murderous military junta in Chile after the US-backed overthrow of Salvador Allende in 1973.

In the 1980s, the US under Ronald Reagan ravaged Central America in proxy wars to forestall or topple leftist governments. The region still has not healed.

Since 1979, the Middle East and Western Asia have felt the brunt of US foreign policy’s foolishness and cruelty. The Afghanistan war started 42 years ago, in 1979, when President Jimmy Carter’s administration covertly supported Islamic jihadists to fight a Soviet-backed regime. Soon, the CIA-backed mujahedeen helped to provoke a Soviet invasion, trapping the Soviet Union in a debilitating conflict, while pushing Afghanistan into what became a forty-year-long downward spiral of violence and bloodshed.

Across the region, US foreign policy produced growing mayhem. In response to the 1979 toppling of the Shah of Iran (another US-installed dictator), the Reagan administration armed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in his war on Iran’s fledgling Islamic Republic. Mass bloodshed and US-backed chemical warfare ensued. This bloody episode was followed by Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, and then two US-led Gulf Wars, in 1990 and 2003.

The latest round of the Afghan tragedy began in 2001. Barely a month after the terror attacks of September 11, President George W. Bush ordered a US-led invasion to overthrow the Islamic jihadists that the US had backed previously. His Democratic successor, President Barack Obama, not only continued the war and added more troops, but also ordered the CIA to work with Saudi Arabia to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, leading to a vicious Syrian civil war that continues to this day. As if that was not enough, Obama ordered NATO to oust Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi, inciting a decade of instability in that country and its neighbors (including Mali, which has been destabilized by inflows of fighters and weapons from Libya).

What these cases have in common is not just policy failure. Underlying all of them is the US foreign-policy establishment’s belief that the solution to every political challenge is military intervention or CIA-backed destabilization.

That belief speaks to the US foreign-policy elite’s utter disregard of other countries’ desire to escape grinding poverty. Most US military and CIA interventions have occurred in countries that are struggling to overcome severe economic deprivation. Yet instead of alleviating suffering and winning public support, the US typically blows up the small amount of infrastructure the country possesses, while causing the educated professionals to flee for their lives.

Even a cursory look at America’s spending in Afghanistan reveals the stupidity of its policy there. According to a recent report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the US invested roughly $946 billion between 2001 and 2021. Yet almost $1 trillion in outlays won the US few hearts and minds.

Here’s why. Of that $946 billion, fully $816 billion, or 86%, went to military outlays for US troops. And the Afghan people saw little of the remaining $130 billion, with $83 billion going to the Afghan Security Forces. Another $10 billion or so was spent on drug interdiction operations, while $15 billion was for US agencies operating in Afghanistan. That left a meager $21 billion in “economic support” funding. Yet even much of this spending left little if any development on the ground, because the programs actually “support counterterrorism; bolster national economies; and assist in the development of effective, accessible, and independent legal systems.”

In short, less than 2% of the US spending on Afghanistan, and probably far less than 2%, reached the Afghan people in the form of basic infrastructure or poverty-reducing services. The US could have invested in clean water and sanitation, school buildings, clinics, digital connectivity, agricultural equipment and extension, nutrition programs, and many other programs to lift the country from economic deprivation. Instead, it leaves behind a country with a life expectancy of 63 years, a maternal mortality rate of 638 per 100,000 births, and a child stunting rate of 38%.

The US should never have intervened militarily in Afghanistan – not in 1979, nor in 2001, and not for the 20 years since. But once there, the US could and should have fostered a more stable and prosperous Afghanistan by investing in maternal health, schools, safe water, nutrition, and the like. Such humane investments – especially financed together with other countries through institutions such as the Asian Development Bank – would have helped to end the bloodshed in Afghanistan, and in other impoverished regions, forestalling future wars.

Yet American leaders go out of their way to emphasize to the American public that we won’t waste money on such trivialities. The sad truth is that the American political class and mass media hold the people of poorer nations in contempt, even as they intervene relentlessly and recklessly in those countries. Of course, much of America’s elite holds America’s own poor in similar contempt.

In the aftermath of the fall of Kabul, the US mass media is, predictably, blaming the US failure on Afghanistan’s incorrigible corruption. The lack of American self-awareness is startling. It’s no surprise that after trillions of dollars spent on wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and beyond, the US has nothing to show for its efforts but blood in the sand.
[18/08, 15:09] CBM Plastic: Ecelllent article by prof Sachs. A bold and courageous man.
 

CodeforFood

FULL MEMBER
Mar 4, 2019
569
0
461
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Pakistan needs to stop the Military personnel meeting foreign Ambassadors

Specially Intelligence heads need to focus on local issue not meeting foreign NGO
I totally agree with this! Military should be tasked with the defense of borders. This practice of civilian diplomats meeting military should be totally discouraged. Armed forces should be totally disarmed on this front and brought directly under the control of civilian govt. This drama that plays over and over again in Pakistan needs to stop.
 

Menace2Society

ELITE MEMBER
May 2, 2011
8,819
2
14,691
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
This was regime change by India by proxy.

India had asked Trump to remove Khan and Trump did the opposite and took to him and liked that he was an alpha and based.

They requested again when Biden took over and this time they obliged. It was never about the bases, it was to surround Khan with controversy and apply pressure.

Balakot strikes, faulty missile, PDM, US diplomats in India prior to NCM and NCV for consultations, no phone call from Biden. All fingers point to India.
 

maverick1977

SENIOR MEMBER
Feb 8, 2009
3,473
0
4,550
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
This was regime change by India by proxy.

India had asked Trump to remove Khan and Trump did the opposite and took to him and liked that he was an alpha and based.

They requested again when Biden took over and this time they obliged. It was never about the bases, it was to surround Khan with controversy and apply pressure.

Balakot strikes, faulty missile, PDM, US diplomats in India prior to NCM and NCV for consultations, no phone call from Biden. All fingers point to India.
Yes i cant agree with you more...
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom