ISI chief cancels UK visit
- Thread starter Patriot
- Start date
Please put everything and anything that any one says against Pakistan into trash. Just keep listening to whatever ISI and army says. And when some day, when you become destitute because of your country's policies,cry 'This is not what my army uncle said, I was expecting heaven not hell'. Only then you guys would realise.
Awesome
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,023
- Reaction score
- 5
The President ended up doing a flip flop, went, is going to spend 7000 GBP per night on some luxury suite - booked 18 such suites, 18 luxury limos - for a 7 night stay.
The President flip flopped since some Billawal related announcement is on the cards. In this trip.
Hulk
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2009
- Messages
- 7,582
- Reaction score
- -18
- Country
- Location
Man don't you think this is kind of crime? I mean how can you spend such amounts for a trip of your kid and ask the nation to pay for it. Please note, Indians also does similar stuff and my comment is general not person specific. When I read all of this, cannot understand it for some matter, I believe a good leader can definitely reduce expenses.
khanz
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,514
- Reaction score
- 1
b@stard zardari seems to have no interest in standing up for his country's honour all he needed to do was not go to the UK to send a strong message yet the spineless coward is still planning his trip.I am just as annoyed at our sellout of a PM as i am at cameron.
Last edited:
Awesome
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,023
- Reaction score
- 5
The president has enough criminal charges against him, he can stack up a few more.
Only criminals and thugs are befriended by western powers in Pakistan. David Cameron can stand on Minar-e-Pakistan and scream "Pakistanis are all assholes" and still they will bend over and say "Ji sahi maibaap".
sparklingway
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 12, 2009
- Messages
- 3,878
- Reaction score
- 0
Since Altaf Hussain has been vocal and asking that a stern response requires the cancellation of the visit, I hereby ask him to renunciate his British citizenship and return to Azizabad.
sparklingway
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 12, 2009
- Messages
- 3,878
- Reaction score
- 0
Internal squabbling - Dawn Editorial - August 1, 2010
PERHAPS it was inevitable that a government which appears largely to have surrendered the national security and foreign policy domains to the army high command would eventually find itself torn in opposite directions. Following UK Prime Minister David Camerons highly unfortunate, but very deliberate, comments, the army has shown its displeasure by making the ISI chief skip upcoming meetings with intelligence counterparts in the UK. The presidency, however, is determined to go ahead with its planned visit to the UK, despite the reservations of the diplomatic community here and despite the UK prime minister publicly stating that he would take up with President Zardari the matter of support for groups that export terror from Pakistani soil. In the particular instance, who here is right? Diplomatic procedure in such cases is a carefully graded series of reactions: express stiff annoyance by summoning the top relevant foreign diplomat in Islamabad; express severe displeasure by calling home the Pakistani high commissioner for consultations; or trigger a fullblown diplomatic crisis by recalling the Pakistani high commissioner. President Zardari appears to have chosen the softest of options: summon the second-highest ranking UK official in Islamabad while the high commissioner is away to receive Mr Zardari in the UK.
The question then: is the presidency being unnecessarily soft? Perhaps. But then the security establishment being up in arms and demanding a strong reaction is also not without its own set of problems. Recently, the top American military official, Adm Mike Mullen, spoke in New Delhi about the threat that the Lashkar-i-Taiba posed to the outside world, effectively the export of terror concern articulated by Mr Cameron. Adm Mullen immediately thereafter visited Pakistan and refused to tone down his comments here. Yet there was no fierce reaction from the security establishment. So is there a double standard at work? Almost certainly. That, though, may be embedded in the nature of international relations: push back fiercely when you can, be more circumspect when you have to be. Three countries have attacked Pakistan recently over the existence of groups here that may or may not have official support and which launch attacks outside the country. These are Afghanistan, the UK and the US. That the fiercest diplomatic reaction has been reserved for Afghanistan and the softest for the US tells a story of its own.
Nevertheless, the presidency, the political government and the security establishment need to address the issue of being on different pages so often. Speaking with different voices on the same issues sends damaging signals, externally and internally. The civil-military imbalance is a reality here, but it can definitely be managed in a more constructive manner.
PERHAPS it was inevitable that a government which appears largely to have surrendered the national security and foreign policy domains to the army high command would eventually find itself torn in opposite directions. Following UK Prime Minister David Camerons highly unfortunate, but very deliberate, comments, the army has shown its displeasure by making the ISI chief skip upcoming meetings with intelligence counterparts in the UK. The presidency, however, is determined to go ahead with its planned visit to the UK, despite the reservations of the diplomatic community here and despite the UK prime minister publicly stating that he would take up with President Zardari the matter of support for groups that export terror from Pakistani soil. In the particular instance, who here is right? Diplomatic procedure in such cases is a carefully graded series of reactions: express stiff annoyance by summoning the top relevant foreign diplomat in Islamabad; express severe displeasure by calling home the Pakistani high commissioner for consultations; or trigger a fullblown diplomatic crisis by recalling the Pakistani high commissioner. President Zardari appears to have chosen the softest of options: summon the second-highest ranking UK official in Islamabad while the high commissioner is away to receive Mr Zardari in the UK.
The question then: is the presidency being unnecessarily soft? Perhaps. But then the security establishment being up in arms and demanding a strong reaction is also not without its own set of problems. Recently, the top American military official, Adm Mike Mullen, spoke in New Delhi about the threat that the Lashkar-i-Taiba posed to the outside world, effectively the export of terror concern articulated by Mr Cameron. Adm Mullen immediately thereafter visited Pakistan and refused to tone down his comments here. Yet there was no fierce reaction from the security establishment. So is there a double standard at work? Almost certainly. That, though, may be embedded in the nature of international relations: push back fiercely when you can, be more circumspect when you have to be. Three countries have attacked Pakistan recently over the existence of groups here that may or may not have official support and which launch attacks outside the country. These are Afghanistan, the UK and the US. That the fiercest diplomatic reaction has been reserved for Afghanistan and the softest for the US tells a story of its own.
Nevertheless, the presidency, the political government and the security establishment need to address the issue of being on different pages so often. Speaking with different voices on the same issues sends damaging signals, externally and internally. The civil-military imbalance is a reality here, but it can definitely be managed in a more constructive manner.
Gin ka Pakistan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2009
- Messages
- 2,949
- Reaction score
- 0
US has given tons of Weapons to Pakistan and UK nothing. Pakistan can live without UK but not without F-16s.
US invest in Military Men while UK in Pakistani Politicians so Zardari will go, too bad UK has no friends in Pak Army or influence like US
Last edited:
prototype
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 2,672
- Reaction score
- 0
u forget about the massive aid's coming from U.K,meanwhile criteria for U.K and U.S is different in Pakistan,they dont need ti invest free in ur military,they r looking for only business which only India can give so they have to please us against ur choices
Gin ka Pakistan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2009
- Messages
- 2,949
- Reaction score
- 0
Oh man I was replying to the Dawn article about double stand of Pak Army. No Indian angle please
GUNNER
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 1,489
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
LONDON, Aug 1, 2010 (AFP) - David Cameron was facing tricky talks this week with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari after the British prime minister's remarks on the export of terror triggered a diplomatic spat.
Zardari's three-day visit later this week is likely to be overshadowed by the fall-out from Cameron's outspoken comments in Pakistan's rival neighbour India last week.
Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency has already pulled out of a visit to discuss counter-terrorism co-operation with British security services in London.
Cameron has come under fire in some British newspapers for a string of perceived diplomatic errors in his first major series of foreign visits, to the United States and India, in recent weeks.
Pakistan's Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira said Zardari would "explain the facts" over Cameron's "misperception", insisting that the row should not be allowed to sour relations between the two countries.
"If the prime minister of the UK has said something that is contrary to the facts on the ground, it doesn't mean that we should boycott each other," Kaira said Saturday at a press conference in London.
"The president of Pakistan will explain and have a dialogue and good discussion and he will explain the facts to the new government over here.
"We hope that... when they get the exact picture, they will agree with us."
Zardari is due for talks with Cameron on Friday at Chequers, the prime minister's country retreat.
Pakistan has been under intense scrutiny after leaked secret US military documents detailed alleged links between the ISI and Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan.
Kaira rejected any such suggestion.
He said the planned ISI London visit had been postponed "because of their own commitments", adding that the stalled trip was "operational", involving lower-ranking ISI agents.
He said he expected that intelligence co-operation would continue.
"We are quite confident that when we have explained the situation to the new leadership over here, they will of course recognise and realise the sacrifices and actions the government of Pakistan has taken in relation to extremism," he said.
Cameron's comments were made Wednesday in Bangalore, India's southern technology hub.
"We cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country (Pakistan) 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," he said.
David Miliband, the former foreign secretary, said Cameron's early forays into international diplomacy had been a mess.
"Cameron has used the past two weeks to make a verbal splash on foreign policy," the opposition Labour foreign affairs spokesman wrote in The Independent on Sunday newspaper.
"Like a cuttlefish squirting out ink, his words were copious and created a mess.
"Making a splash is not the same as making a difference.
"It would have been better for the prime minister to talk about ways we can support Pakistan."
Zardari's three-day visit later this week is likely to be overshadowed by the fall-out from Cameron's outspoken comments in Pakistan's rival neighbour India last week.
Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency has already pulled out of a visit to discuss counter-terrorism co-operation with British security services in London.
Cameron has come under fire in some British newspapers for a string of perceived diplomatic errors in his first major series of foreign visits, to the United States and India, in recent weeks.
Pakistan's Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira said Zardari would "explain the facts" over Cameron's "misperception", insisting that the row should not be allowed to sour relations between the two countries.
"If the prime minister of the UK has said something that is contrary to the facts on the ground, it doesn't mean that we should boycott each other," Kaira said Saturday at a press conference in London.
"The president of Pakistan will explain and have a dialogue and good discussion and he will explain the facts to the new government over here.
"We hope that... when they get the exact picture, they will agree with us."
Zardari is due for talks with Cameron on Friday at Chequers, the prime minister's country retreat.
Pakistan has been under intense scrutiny after leaked secret US military documents detailed alleged links between the ISI and Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan.
Kaira rejected any such suggestion.
He said the planned ISI London visit had been postponed "because of their own commitments", adding that the stalled trip was "operational", involving lower-ranking ISI agents.
He said he expected that intelligence co-operation would continue.
"We are quite confident that when we have explained the situation to the new leadership over here, they will of course recognise and realise the sacrifices and actions the government of Pakistan has taken in relation to extremism," he said.
Cameron's comments were made Wednesday in Bangalore, India's southern technology hub.
"We cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country (Pakistan) 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," he said.
David Miliband, the former foreign secretary, said Cameron's early forays into international diplomacy had been a mess.
"Cameron has used the past two weeks to make a verbal splash on foreign policy," the opposition Labour foreign affairs spokesman wrote in The Independent on Sunday newspaper.
"Like a cuttlefish squirting out ink, his words were copious and created a mess.
"Making a splash is not the same as making a difference.
"It would have been better for the prime minister to talk about ways we can support Pakistan."
IceCold
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- May 1, 2007
- Messages
- 19,236
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
So while people throw wild accusations at us and label Pakistan and Pakistanis as terrorist, our beloved President will go there and explain to his highness "ohh lord we are not terrorists" Is that the case?
What Mr President need to realize is that the need for him to go to UK to explain himself to his master may have never arisen, had he some guts to stand up for what is right and tell Mr Cameron to either apologize for his comments which insulted the whole Pakistani nation or you can say goodbye to the diplomatic relations between the 2 sides after all not only he insulted Pakistan and Pakistanis but to add insult to the injury, he did so in a country that is considered rival of Pakistan and more over has stick to his remarks because of our appeasement attitude towards others.
shaka_shaka
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2010
- Messages
- 32
- Reaction score
- 0
this is why.
pakistan army and ISI never trust politicians especially PPP.
if zardari cancels this visit, which is never going to happen in my opinion.
it would either be if:
internal situation goes totally wrong and he thinks in his abscence, army will take over, which is also NOT a possibility with kiyani.
or:
the media takes up this issue, which media is NOT taking up, there was a news ticker about this on many channels that ISI cheif cancels UK visit and the public sentiment of course would want zardari to cancel it, but strangely enough the media has gona all quiet all of a sudden on this issue. which means the establishment still wants zardari to visit the UK.
so,
zardari will not cancel this visit.
there is one thing which is beyond me however,
if ISI and Army care so much about pakistan, why dont they hold another operation against MQM in karachi.?
the whole world knows about MQM ministers' and leaders' artocities against innocent human beings in sindh.
in case of another india/pak conflict, india can easily disrupt karachi which generates around 70% of complete pakistani economy because the god of MQM people, altaf is in the hands of india. just like pakistan in of course counter interfering in india. but MQM is and can be disaster to national security of pakistan.
pakistan army and ISI never trust politicians especially PPP.
if zardari cancels this visit, which is never going to happen in my opinion.
it would either be if:
internal situation goes totally wrong and he thinks in his abscence, army will take over, which is also NOT a possibility with kiyani.
or:
the media takes up this issue, which media is NOT taking up, there was a news ticker about this on many channels that ISI cheif cancels UK visit and the public sentiment of course would want zardari to cancel it, but strangely enough the media has gona all quiet all of a sudden on this issue. which means the establishment still wants zardari to visit the UK.
so,
zardari will not cancel this visit.
there is one thing which is beyond me however,
if ISI and Army care so much about pakistan, why dont they hold another operation against MQM in karachi.?
the whole world knows about MQM ministers' and leaders' artocities against innocent human beings in sindh.
in case of another india/pak conflict, india can easily disrupt karachi which generates around 70% of complete pakistani economy because the god of MQM people, altaf is in the hands of india. just like pakistan in of course counter interfering in india. but MQM is and can be disaster to national security of pakistan.
Similar threads
