Cameron's inflammatory comments against Pakistan: I meant Pakistanis are terrorists..

[Gin ka Pakistan]

He just needs Money - because if there is no money then there is no honey for his party in UK.

Think about this:

They Let go a "Charged" Terrorist for securing an oil contract for British Petroleum in Libya

For the sake of oil , everything even terrorists are forgiven and he was clever enough that he convinced Yankeez by his well groomed "British diplomacy"

They lied that he is sick and dying to Yankeez when he has years to live.

 

[third eye]

As seen in the Picture - the lady (Dont know who she is) is keen to get her photo taken with the Farangi PM but Mr Farangi is looking somewhere else , maybe thinking of the strategy his Ancestors implemented by the East India company Implemented to take hold of the Indian Economy.




Time will tell bud - just sit tight

See, this is what I meant, not only have we jumped to strange conclusions, we can even read the mind of a man in the picture !

Would we be able to read what Osama thinks by seeing his picture ? It would really help Pak in its WOT. How about mind reading Mr 10 %? It could save the nation of precious money too !

 

[Nav]

Mr.10% should be handed over to india forever, he will take india to the glory as he did with pakistan.

 

[Frankenstein]

Cameron knows jack squat about us

we export

Rice

Leather goods

Sports goods

Chemicals

Manufactures

:angle:

Carpets and rugs

 

[third eye]

Cameron knows jack squat about us

we export

Rice

Leather goods

Sports goods

Chemicals

Manufactures

:angle:

Carpets and rugs

He was not referring to any of these exports.

 

[amit27]

It is well known fact that most the terror plots in the west have been linked to pakistan the latest one was the failed times sq bomb plot.

 

[karan.1970]

If he knows something we do not, then the fact that he has come out into the open and angered Pakistan should no longer be a hindrance in providing the information on which those comments were based.

As for the relationship changing, I think it is changing, along the lines of the US, where economics and trade is taking center-stage and nations will base their relationships on that foundation. Given that India offers far more from an economic and trade standpoint than does Pakistan at this point, the 'de-linking' of India-Pakistan relations, along the lines of the US, is something the UK will adopt as well. So as I pointed out, the 'optics' will change - no more 'visit Pakistan if you visit India' and 'treat both equally in all matters', but advance relationships based on mutual interests with both.

Beyond that the G2G relationship between the US and Pakistan and the US and UK will continue as is so long as NATO is in Afghanistan, and they are going to be there for a long time by all appearances.

Absolutely agree.. except the 1st line. Because there could be other intellegence source/security reasons why he may choose not to divulge the info or its source.. Or may be he will.. Or maybe he'll just issue a clarification...

 

[karan.1970]

A serious accusation such as that (though he has now backtracked) needs to be substantiated. Otherwise he is no better than A-Jad accusing the US and UK of supporting terrorism in Iran.

He may choose to not substantiate it. Its not that they didnt have proof earlier but have it now.. Its that they were not willing to accuse Pakistan at this level earlier and now they are...

And it is certainly different from A-Jad accusing US and UK since those are mutual accusations, just like India and Pakistani leadership keeps doing regularly. This is UK PM agreeing to India's stand on Pakistan publically...

 

[karan.1970]

That does not make Cameron's claims any more legitimate or valid.

it doesnt...makes them significant though...

 

[karan.1970]

Isn't that what many indians use as their argument? Such as the person I just responded to, that since many westerners believe Pakistan is supporting terrorism, that their beliefs are enough proof that Pakistan is supporting terrorism.

In situations like these, proofs are immaterial.. Why do you need proofs to begin with.. To convince people of your point of view.. Now if people already believe (correctly or not), the same point of view, physical proofs become secondary. US policies (or for that matter any country's) will depend on what most of their lawmakers belive in. Proof or no proof..

 

[Bhim]

Can we have some intelligent discussion on why he made this statement at such a sensitive time and location?
He is head of state, and any one familiar with foreign affairs will know, no head of state makes any comments with out review of broad line of policy. It would have been altogether a different ball game had it been from the opposition leader.
Don't forget these powerful Honchos, now known as Directors of World(If any one was following the G20 summit in Toronto) meet a number of times with each other each year to review the broad world economic and political set up, so its not just said and spit.

In nut shell, it is a sincere effort to tell GOP to curb terrorism from its soil and nothing more. It should be comforting when he said GOP is not involved, but it needs to do more to finish those elements from its soil. I see nothing wrong in that.

Otherwise all welcome to make fun of him..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

it doesnt...makes thrm significant thouh...

The comments are significant only from the UK's perspective, in a 'geo-political sense' as you argued, in that they seek to shift Indian opinion favorably towards the UK in order that the UK may benefit economically from civilian and military business deals with India - economic ties that are even more important now for various Western nations given their struggles to come out of a global recession, and a newly elected political party that needs to deliver on the economic front in order to put some space between itself and Labor.

The comments are a calculated move (and even have wiggle room given the rather prompt backtracking we saw), made with the knowledge that they would anger Pakistan, but also with the knowledge that angering Pakistan will not affect UK interests in any significant manner in the long run. They are also made with the knowledge that, as pointed out by Solomon2, they do not require the UK to take any tangible action against Pakistan.

But in terms of validating the oft regurgitated claims against Pakistani institutions, they do nothing since they lack specifics and credible substantiation.

 

[amit27]

Its not all about India why he made this statement remember in UK we had 7/7 bomb blast from british born pakistanis who had jihadi training in terror camps in pak, the last pm gordon brown also said that 90% of terror plots were linked to pakistan and he said that while in pakistan!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Its not all about India why he made this statement remember in UK we had 7/7 bomb blast from british born pakistanis who had jihadi training in terror camps in pak, the last pm gordon brown also said that 90% of terror plots were linked to pakistan and he said that while in pakistan!

Those people were British born, raised (3 British of Pakistani origin and one British of Jamaican origin) and AFAIK introduced to extremism in Britain.

Pakistan played no role in the most significant part of their radicalization - that fault lies with Britain, its inability to track and close centers of extremist indoctrination and its socio-economic tensions allowing movement towards extremism.

 

[karan.1970]

BBC News - Candid Cameron ruffles diplomatic feathers

Refreshing?

What you see is what you get, he often suggests, with transparency being one of his buzzwords.

The argument, honesty is the best policy, is often deployed when talking about the coming cuts.

And having witnessed a few of his Cameron Direct, or as they are now called, PM Direct, public meetings, the prime minister appears at ease with candour, and handles such question and answer sessions with ease.

He prides himself on being straight with people - refreshing, perhaps, for a Westminster politician.

But after his early foreign forays does "saying what you see" work abroad, where tangled relationships between many different countries can defy simple explanation?

Perhaps after Mr Cameron's first few overseas travels as prime minister, there is a danger that candour can be lost in translation.

BBC News - Candid Cameron ruffles diplomatic feathers