What's new

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

It never ceases to amaze me how popular the Armed Forces of Pakistan are amongst it people. I can understand in case of North Korea or Burma which don't have a free press and impose severe restrictions on their people. The Pakistanis I have met are quite liberal and free to act in their country. I mean if an Indian general did talk of a coup to replace the civilian government, however corrupt that civilian government might be - I would probably laugh at his face. Zardari is going to UK but Kayani is not? Shouldn't Kayani do as told by Zardari?

Kayani was not supposed to go, it was an ISI delegation.

And it is indeed a good question to ask, of what the purpose of the UK meeting or cooperating with the ISI is, if they are implying that the ISI is 'exporting terror'?
 
یہ ٹھیک ہے کہ پاکستان جیسے ترقی پذیر ممالک میں تعلیم ، صحت و صفائی ، خوراک ، انصاف، خوش رہنے کے مواقع، قوتِ برداشت، تصورِ مساوات ، حسنِ انتظام اور مستقبل سازی کے رجہان جیسی اشیا کی کمی ہے لیکن ایک شے کی کوئی کمی نہیں۔

یہ شے فقیر سے بادشاہ تک سب کے پاس نہ صرف وافر ہے بلکہ ہر کوئی اسے اپنی اپنی سوچ کے حساب سے دونوں ہاتھوں سے لٹا رہا ہے۔ یہ دولت جتنی خرچ ہوتی ہے اتنی ہی بڑھتی ہے۔اس دولت کا نام ہے غیرت۔

آپ کسی بھکاری کو پانچ روپے کا سکہ دے کر تو دیکھیں وہ مارے غیرت کے اسے قبول کرنے سے انکار کردے گا۔ لیکن اگر آپ اسے کام دلانے کی پیش کش کریں تو اسکی غیرت فوراً سو جائے گی

آپ اپنی کسی بات ، بیان یا اشارے سے کسی بااثر شخص کی غیرت للکار کر دیکھیں۔اگلے دن ہوسکتا ہے آپ اغوا ہوجائیں یا نامعلوم افراد آپ کے گھر کے سامنے فائرنگ کرتے گذر جائیں یا فون پر دھمکیوں کا لگاتار سلسلہ شروع ہوجائے۔ یا آپ کے گھر سے چرس و اسلحہ برآمد ہوجائے یا آپ کو کرپشن کے کسی مقدمے کا نوٹس آجائے۔

لیکن یہی بااثر شخص جب اپنے سے زیادہ بااثر شیروانی پوش یا وردی پوش کے روبرو ہوتا ہے تو اسکے منہ سے سر ، جناب والا، بجا فرمایا جیسے الفاظ کے سوا کچھ نہیں نکلتا۔

غیرت کا قومی سطح پر کس ذہانت سے استعمال ہوتا ہے یہ جاننے کے لئے بہت زیادہ ذہانت کی ضرورت نہیں

اگر ڈیوڈ کیمرون کہیں کہ پاکستان دھشت گردی کے نیٹ ورک کو ختم کرے تو دفترِ خارجہ کہے گا ’ہمیں برطانوی وزیرِ اعظم کے اس الزام پر دکھ اور حیرت ہے۔

اگر ہیلری کلنٹن کہیں کہ انہیں یقین ہے کہ پاکستانی اسٹیبلشمنٹ کے کچھ لوگ اسامہ اور ملا عمر سے رابطے میں ہیں تو اسلام آباد کا ردِ عمل یوں ہوگا کہ ’یہ ہیلری کلنٹن کی ذاتی رائے ہوسکتی ہے۔ امریکہ دھشت گردی کے خلاف پاکستان کے مثبت کردار کو سراہتا ہے۔

لیکن من موہن سنگھ اگر مطالبہ کریں کہ پاکستان اپنی سرزمین پر قائم دہشت گردی کے نیٹ ورک کو ختم کرے تو اسلام آباد سے اس کا ترنت جواب ہوگا ’اے جاہل بوڑھے بک بک بند کر‘

اگر حامد کرزئی یہی الزام لگائیں تو اسلام آباد کا ردِ عمل ہوگا ’ابے دو ٹکے کے آدمی اپنی اوقات پہچان
اسے کہتے ہیں غیرت کا احتیاط سے بندہ دیکھ کر استعمال

مشکل یہ ہے کہ غیرت کا زیادہ تر ذخیرہ توہین آمیز کارٹونوں سے لے کر دھشت گردی کے الزامات تک خارجی معاملات سے نمٹنے میں خرچ ہوجاتا ہے۔ اندرونِ ملک غیرت کا سب سے زیادہ استعمال یا تو عورتوں پر یا پھر پنجابی فلموں میں ہوتا ہے۔ سنجیدہ اور اجتماعی نوعیت کے معاملات میں اس کا استعمال نایاب کے برابر ہے

مثلاً ہزاروں لاپتہ افراد کی بازیابی کا معاملہ ہو یا سیلاب و سمندری طوفان سے بے گھر لاکھوں لوگوں کی آبادکاری کا سوال۔ ٹارگٹ کلنگ کے ذمہ داروں پر ہاتھ ڈالنے کا معاملہ ہو یا پھر دھشت گردوں کی اجتماعی مذمت کا ایشو۔ مرنے والوں کے لئے بلا امتیاز مذہب و نسل و قومیت تعزیت کرنے کی ضرورت ہو یا ریپ زدہ عورت کے ملزموں پر پکا ہاتھ ڈالنے کا معاملہ۔ جعلی ڈگری یافتہ ارکان اسمبلی سے لاتعلقی کا سوال ہو یا شوگر مافیا کو لگام دینے اور کرپشن کے خلاف جنگ شروع کرنے کی بات ہو۔ ایسے اور ان جیسے بیسیوں معاملات میں غیرت بقدرِ نمک چھڑکی جاتی ہے

غیرت ہے جس کا نام ہمی جانتے ہیں داغ

سارے جہاں میں دھوم ہماری دکاں کی ہے
 
Last edited:
Imran bhai article to acha hai laikin writer kaun hai?
 
David Cameron has caused anger in Pakistan: Imran Khan
By Khawaja Hussain | 293 Views | Article Rating | National [Click to print]



During a visit to India this week, the Prime Minister accused Pakistan of “promoting the export of terror” and of being “two-faced” in its attitude to the Taliban in Afghanistan and the West.

His words were welcomed by his host, but greeted with alarm in Pakistan, India’s great regional rival, and have put into doubt a visit to the United Kingdom next week by President Asif Ali Zardari, who is due stay with Mr Cameron at his country retreat of Chequers.

Mr Khan compared the Prime Minister’s remarks to the American attitude to Vietnam and its neighbour Cambodia during the conflict there.

He told the BBC: "There is obviously a lot of anger in Pakistan at David Cameron's statement because here people feel this country is the biggest sufferer of terrorism.

"We are being blamed for the complete failure of the Afghanistan campaign, this doomed campaign. Pakistan has become the scapegoat. Pakistan has become what Cambodia was in the Vietnam War.

"The failure in Vietnam was blamed on Cambodia and Cambodia was destroyed by the bombing. Today Pakistan is being bombed by its ally, the US ... killing mostly innocent people."

A senior Pakistani official confirmed that Mr Cameron’s remarks may result in Mr Zardari pulling out of the Chequers visit.

The official said: "Our president is now giving serious consideration to cancelling his proposed visit to London next week.

"He is under considerable pressure from his senior officials to cancel his planned meeting with Mr Cameron at Chequers as a protest against the prime minister's comments in India."

The Prime Minister made his comments during a question-and-answer session following a speech in Bangalore.

He said: "We cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror, whether to India or whether to Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world."
 
If there was a positive to come out of this, it's three things:

1) That Ghaddari has once again shown how detatched he is from the mainstream public.

2) He increases his isolation by going ahead with this UK visit.

3) As a result, hatred for him increases (and for his family / party).​

But then I see Gilani speaking today, giving a speech and the 'bewakoof awaam' are cheering every word (read lie) he says and I ask myself "will we ever see real positive change with a screwed up naive public like ours?'

The sad answer to that is not for a long while.
 
Kayani was not supposed to go, it was an ISI delegation.

And it is indeed a good question to ask, of what the purpose of the UK meeting or cooperating with the ISI is, if they are implying that the ISI is 'exporting terror'?

So now the ISI delegation is not going to the UK but the civilians are? If the ISI is going to do what it wants anyway and not listen to civilians leadership, why waste Pakistani taxpayer money in sponsoring these UK trips for the civilian leadership?
 
ہ من موہن سنگھ اگر مطالبہ کریں کہ پاکستان اپنی سرزمین پر قائم دہشت گردی کے نیٹ ورک کو ختم کرے تو اسلام آباد سے اس کا ترنت جواب ہوگا ’اے جاہل بوڑھے بک بک بند کر‘

اگر حامد کرزئی یہی الزام لگائیں تو اسلام آباد کا ردِ عمل ہوگا ’ابے دو ٹکے کے آدمی اپنی اوقات پہچان[/COLOR] اسے کہتے ہیں غیرت کا احتیاط سے بندہ دیکھ کر استعمال

مشکل یہ ہے کہ غیرت کا زیادہ تر ذخیرہ توہین آمیز کارٹونوں سے لے کر دھشت گردی کے الزامات سارے جہاں میں دھوم ہماری دکاں کی ہے

Sir ,
How can we teach this to our foreign Office.
 
Every indian has defnitely one dream but very different from the one you are claiming...Our dream is to become a superpower....An economic superpower and an undisputed regional power in military terms.....we do not wish for any invasion be it Pakistan..be it China....So i am sorry but you seems to be basing your argument on a flawed assumption....

Who is talking about just India to be the invader ???
 
Mistaking David Cameron for Kaiser Wilhelm?

By Jawed Naqvi

Monday, 02 Aug, 2010

Why is everyone so excessively miffed with David Cameron? He came to India and said a few terse things about Pakistan and the ISI. Some Pakistanis too would agree with his views on the spy agency, not to mention countries in the neighbourhood that have nightmares over its real and imagined activities. The British prime minister didn’t say anything new, did he? He essentially repeated what we could in any case glean from the Wikileaks revelations, or even earlier, from Zia ul Haq’s havoc, which he wreaked on his countrymen to the West’s boundless appreciation.

Some critics felt Mr Cameron was undiplomatic in chiding Pakistan from Indian soil, while a former British foreign secretary described him as a loudmouth. But then everyone knows he was on a mission to sell warplanes to India. If flattery and appeasement of the nouveau riche elite in India fetches him a politically and economically useful 700 million pounds military deal, so be it. That’s why he first went to Bangalore where a pact was initialled before he arrived in Delhi. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had arranged a grand reception at the splendorous presidential palace, the former vice-regal lodge, from where Cameron’s forbears had ruled India.

The most evident reason for Mr Cameron to make his overhyped pronouncements from Delhi lies in the fact that he is a Conservative politician in the image of Margaret Thatcher. When Napoleon called England a nation of shopkeepers he could not have imagined how accurately the description would fit the former Iron Lady who, it was common knowledge, never visited any country without an order form in her handbag. Mrs Thatcher of course had another feather in her cap which Mr Cameron can only dream of. Her image makeover came from near the remote South Pole where she converted the Malvinas islands into the Falklands with military force.

There seems far less hope for her ideological protégé to expect similar generosity in an even more inhospitable region – Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East where Britain has its irons in the fire. The best he can hope for is to cut his losses at home, discard the Liberal allies in the not too distant future and find the votes to elect a Conservative government by being or becoming assiduously rightwing.

Therefore, Mr Cameron cannot and should not be faulted for being merely what he is – an exceedingly ambitious Conservative politician. And though he is seeking to cast himself in the mould of Mrs Thatcher he neither has a Ronald Regan to boost his morale nor the ruse of a Cold War to mask the ambitions of his party’s militarist worldview. The trouble lies elsewhere, and it really lies with the obsequious Indians and fawning Pakistanis who act hurt when they are rapped on the knuckles by those they seek to play sherpas to.

What Mr Cameron said about the ISI made for banner headlines in most Indian dailies. Why? The question is particularly valid since Indian officials, including the home secretary, the foreign minister and the national security adviser had known and spoken publicly of the ISI’s entanglement in Afghanistan. What is the net worth of Mr Cameron’s inculpation of the ISI in Afghanistan when India already knew better? And in spite of this knowledge about the ISI, Dr Manmohan Singh was willing to talk to Pakistan. The Indian leader obviously knows more than anyone else that the only way to tame the ISI in Afghanistan or in Kashmir would be to take Pakistan on a journey of trust-building. But there are powerful lobbies in India that can virtually dictate the lead story to a newspaper and who don’t want any progress in talks with Islamabad.

How else could the Times of India, leading the Aman Yatra for peace with Pakistan, report after the Cameron-Singh press conference that Dr Singh had blamed the Pakistan foreign minister for the talks’ “failure” in Islamabad? Failure? The Indian prime minister had clearly said that the Pakistan minister’s handling of a press conference had distracted from important achievements the two foreign ministers had made in their discussions.

Similarly, when Indian and Pakistani national security advisers met in Delhi and warmly hugged each other in September 2008 in an unprecedented public display of camaraderie, they had been hit by the Kabul embassy blast in July and a subsequent attack on the Marriott in Islamabad. Did they not know their brief? M.K. Narayanan, the Indian NSA, told Mr Mahmud Ali Durrani that he was on the same page with him on terrorism. What did they mean? Did India not know about the ISI’s role in Afghanistan when it was reaching out to Pakistan before Mumbai set back the rapprochement by months.

In any case how does Mr Cameron help the matter? What can he do for India? As far as he is concerned India remains a pawn that is aspiring to be a player in the international chess game which his forbears started in 18th century in the southern half of the subcontinent. Were it not for the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle signed in 1748 between France and Spain, British mercenary Robert Clive would be a prisoner in French-ruled Madras. The treaty saw France regaining a key outpost in America. In fact, Britain had exchanged Louisbourg so that France withdrew from the Netherlands. Madras, captured by French Admiral La Bourdonnais in 1746 was returned to Britain likewise. Is a similar treaty going to be signed to work out some international arrangement, say between the Shanghai Group and Nato with similar profit-driven international linkages?

Would it not be more prudent for India to resolve its disputes with Pakistan, among other reasons, to gain an important advantage in Afghanistan – and thus also avoid the embarrassment of remaining a cheerleader for the United States and Britain, that too in its own neighbourhood? To get there, however, it will need to overcome the embarrassment of an obsequious middle class with its “non-resident” pseudo nationalist mentality. It would require the press to stop acting silly.

It really was the limit to see a perfectly agreeable anchor of NDTV asking Mr Cameron to repeat the lines on the ISI. Then the anchor did something even more embarrassing. He virtually asked the British prime minister to agree with his view that the British prime minister had come to Delhi first before planning a trip to Beijing because he cared more for India! A literally frightened Mr Cameron quickly brushed aside the query. I had thought the days were over when one elderly gentleman would invariably humiliate his Indian reporters with his fawning queries at news conferences.

On one occasion, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl was bombarded with the most bizarre line of inquiry. “Welcome to Delhi sir,” said the accredited correspondent of goodness knows which newspaper. Then came the punch line. “Sir between India and Pakistan, would you support us or Pakistan? Also, sir on the question of Kashmir, are you with India? And finally, sir, now that you have East Germany with you, can you help us improve our Olympic standards?” Kohl’s pithy reply was subtle and, I fear, it may have missed his quarry: “I think you are mistaking me for Kaiser Wilhelm,” the German Chancellor said before moving on to the next correspondent.

Well, nor does Mr Cameron claim to be Kaiser Wilhelm. The difference though between Kohl and him was that in a manner of speaking the British leader was more encouraging of his hosts. He was impressed for example with India’s Commonwealth Games effort, which he declared, contrary to what many Indians believe was the case, a success. As Manmohan Singh received the words with obvious relief, his mind must have strayed to the Section 144 imposed in the localities surrounding the sports venue. The criminal procedure code was given the offensive clause by the British in the aftermath of the 1857 uprising to prevent a meeting anywhere of more than four Indians. Four or more Indians were perceived to be plotting something sinister. The same colonial law will help secure the Commonwealth sports contest in October. Mr Cameron could not have missed the symbolism of the great Indian democracy governed with quaint British laws. Looking at the hapless state of Afghanistan, however, we can’t help feeling that things could have been far worse for India and Pakistan. Both should count their blessings.

jawednaqvi@gmail.com
 
ISLAMABAD, Aug 2, 2010 (AFP) - The Pakistani government on Monday summoned Britain's high commissioner to Islamabad, threatening to deepen a diplomatic row over remarks made by the British prime minister on the export of terror.

Relations between London and Islamabad soured last week when David Cameron said Pakistan could not be permitted to "look both ways" in promoting the export of terror while publicly working for stability in the region.

That the remarks were made in arch-rival India made the pill all the more bitter for Pakistan, where domestic pressure has been mounting on President Asif Ali Zardari to cancel talks with Cameron at his country retreat this week.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi hauled top envoy Adam Thomson into talks, officials said.

"The British high commissioner was summoned to foreign office today. He is in a meeting with the foreign minister," a Pakistani foreign ministry official told AFP, saying details will be issued later in a statement.

The British high commission confirmed the meeting.

"It's a meeting at the request of the foreign minister to discuss the prime minister's remarks," a spokesman told AFP.

When asked on BBC radio whether the row would be put to rest when Zardari visits Britain, Pakistan's Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira said "hopefully" and that he would talk to Cameron directly on the matter.

Pakistan as a country felt "hurt" over Cameron's comments, he said.

Newspapers in Pakistan have lashed out against Cameron, but comment was muted by twin tragedies of Pakistan's worst aviation disaster that killed 152 people on Wednesday and floods that have killed 1,200.

English-language newspaper The Nation called on Zardari to cancel his visit to Britain, saying "mere words will not suffice as the British have simply gone too far and at the very least some symbolic action is required".

Zardari is scheduled to hold a summit with Cameron at Chequers, the prime minister's country retreat on Friday, during a three-day visit to Britain.

Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) pulled out of a visit to discuss counter-terrorism co-operation with British security services.

David Miliband, Britain's former foreign minister, also criticised Cameron, writing in The Independent on Sunday newspaper: "It would have been better for the prime minister to talk about ways we can support Pakistan."
 
David Cameron refuses to back down on Pakistan terrorism remarks

David Cameron will not apologise for his comments about Pakistan exporting terrorism when he meets the country’s president for talks this week.

By Andrew Porter, Political Editor


David Cameron has refused to retract remarks he made while visiting India

The Prime Minister provoked outrage in Pakistan when, during a trip to India last week, he said Islamabad could not “look both ways” when it came to tackling terrorism. Some Pakistani politicians urged Asif Ali Zardari to cancel his meeting with Mr Cameron in protest, but the visit will go ahead.

Mr Zardari arrived in Paris last night. He will travel to London tomorrow and meet Mr Cameron at Chequers on Friday.

Downing Street stressed that Mr Cameron would not back away from his remarks about Pakistan promoting “the export of terror” and he would not apologise. “He stands by his comments,” a senior source said. “We are not looking to inflame the situation and we made clear that his comments were not directed at the Pakistan government, but what he said was clear. We are glad the president’s trip is going ahead and we are looking forward to the talks

The talks are certain to be tense. Qamar Zaman Kaira, Pakistan’s information minister, said at the weekend that Mr Zardari would seek to correct Mr Cameron’s “misperception” when they met. A meeting between Pakistan’s ISI intelligence agency and British security experts was cancelled in protest after the Prime Minister’s comments.

David Miliband, the shadow foreign secretary, stepped up his attack on Mr Cameron yesterday, saying he should have recognised Pakistan’s suffering at the hands of terrorists and its democratic progress over recent years, rather than highlighting allegations of covert support for the Taliban in Afghanistan.

On Saturday, Mr Zardari is expected at a rally of his governing Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) in Birmingham, where, according to reports in his homeland, he is planning to launch the political career of his son Bilawal Bhutto Zardari.

The 21-year-old, who completed a history degree at Christ Church, Oxford, in June, has been under special protection by Thames Valley police since the assassination of his mother, Benazir Bhutto,
Pakistan’s former prime minister, in December, 2007.
 
Cameron stands by statement, as Pak FO calls UK’s HC

Monday, August 02, 2010
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistani government on Monday summoned Britain's high commissioner to Islamabad over remarks made by the British prime minister on the export of terror that sparked a diplomatic row, officials said.

Top envoy Adam Thomson went into talks with Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi at around 11:30 am (0630 GMT).

"The British high commissioner was summoned to foreign office today. He is in a meeting with the foreign minister," a Pakistani foreign ministry official said, saying details will be later issued in a statement.

"We can confirm the high commissioner is meeting foreign minister Qureshi," said a spokesman for the high commission.

"It's a meeting at the request of the foreign minister to discuss the prime minister's remarks," the spokesman said.

During a visit to Pakistan's arch rival India last week, Prime Minister David Cameron became mired in a diplomatic row with Islamabad over comments about the "export of terror" from Pakistan.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has emphasised that he will not retract on comments he made regarding Pakistan being guilty of exporting terrorism during his visit to India last week.

Cameron who is scheduled to meet Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari for talks in London on Friday has asserted that he is in no way apologetic about what he said and that the comments though not aimed at the Pakistani government were very relevant to the country as a whole.

David Cameron who earlier this week had commented that Pakistan cannot “look both ways”, with receiving aid from Western nations amounting to billions of dollars on one hand and at the same time encouraging and exporting terror into countries like India and Afghanistan, later added that he felt it was important that issues like these were spoken of frankly especially amongst countries who considered each other as friends.

The meeting between the two heads is scheduled for the 6th of August and is expected to be a bit tense in the wake of the remarks.
 

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom