What's new

New CIA chief hostile to Pakistan!!

India hostile to Pakistan...
Then came the Presler amendment, ban on weapons sales to Pakistan. They even supported India's Siachen incursion by turning a blind eye but demanded us to withdraw during Kargil.

This is not an alliance but slavery. This is from a person who lived with these North Americans for years. We are just a tool for them to be used and discarded.

Good one, really good one. When an expatriate like me tries to say it, we are told either to mind our business or why expatriates ask Pakistan to go to war with US?

We cant ask Pakistan to go to war when a simple 'no' can turn so many things around. Point to ponder.
 
WTF CIA is hostile to Pakistan? and some one shall explain me the abduction of Afghan war kids... where are all the kids who survived the carpet bombing?
 
New director John Brennan must kill the CIA's drone assassination policy
Brennan's nomination is the time to restore the CIA to being a spy agency and end its role as a remote-control death squad



Monday, President Obama nominated John Brennan – the architect of his secretive, deadly drone program – to head the CIA. Before he is confirmed, Brennan should publicly commit to getting the CIA out of the killing business.

With drone strikes in Pakistan accelerating since 2008, the CIA has transformed into a quasi-military force. But as a spy agency, the CIA's instincts are to wage war the way it runs covert actions – in secret, and by its own rules. As it goes about its mission, the agency's habit is to check the boxes, doing the minimum work necessary to achieve legal cover and political buy-in. The CIA selectively leaks details of its drone strikes to the press, so the public only ever learns of its successes, never its failures.

This sounds plausible and even palatable if the CIA is just a spy agency secretly running down terrorists once in a while, as in fictional television shows like Homeland. It is untenable, though, as the model of warfare it is fast becoming. More than 300 drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen have killed about 3,000 people, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. If the CIA's hunter-killer role becomes permanent, the US government will have no grounds for protest when other countries inevitably follow the CIA's example of carrying out drone strike campaigns in any place, at any time, and without any official acknowledgement or need to publicly and legally justify its actions.

Knowing the dangerous precedent the CIA is setting, Obama has alluded to a "due process" for death decision-making. Details are few, but we know the process does not involve the courts or the public, and vests full discretion within the executive branch. Even if it met concerns about the legality of drone strikes, though, this kind of decision-making would be wrong for the CIA, which has a history of grabbing for all the power it can get while failing to rein in abusive agents.

Though it ill fits the CIA's targeted killing program, the internal due process Obama described would somewhat match what military commands traditionally do on the battlefield. The difference is that in democracies, the public entrusts the military to wield lethal force only because it is subject to laws and the enforcing machinery of political oversight. The military has the responsibility of earning public approval for its actions overall, or it risks losing its mandate for war. Public disapproval of the war in Iraq, and dismay at continuing involvement in Afghanistan, led to the US troop drawdowns of the last few years.

This system of public approval and disapproval for military action is imperfect and sometimes fails, but it markedly contrasts with the oversight of the CIA's secretive war-making. Although the Obama administration touts the drone campaign as a success, it is officially a state secret – giving the CIA a free pass on disclosing civilian casualties to courts or to Congress, except in closed sessions with a few members.

In this climate, polls show the American public broadly approves of a drone campaign of which it knows alarmingly little. In American media, the slick and sanitized image of a Predator drone suspended mid-air accompanies news stories on drone strikes that report "militants" killed. Precisely who these men were and how they were selected for execution are rarely mentioned.

The bodies of civilian dead are never pictured, even when these deaths are reported. Reports that drone strikes have killed more than 100 children have sullied the international reputation of the United States, and have led to UN calls for an investigation. Within the US, however, there is little if any public interest in debating the cost of drones on civilian lives.

In Monday's nomination announcement, Obama complimented Brennan on recognizing the responsibility to be as "open and transparent as possible" about counterterrorism policies. Brennan himself pledged "full and open discourse" – though only with "appropriate elective representatives". Despite these nods, it would be naive to expect the CIA, under Brennan, to engage fully with the American public about the drone program. The CIA is too accustomed to secrecy ever to let it go.

If Brennan and Obama were serious about transparency over killing, they would extract the CIA from the drone program altogether. America's premier spy agency should no longer also be its chief assassin.

New director John Brennan must kill the CIA's drone assassination policy | Naureen Shah | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
 
it's a shame General McChrystal is no longer in the mix; i actually admired him
 
Yep, thanks mate. We are ready for Uncle Sam. After all, they gotta withdraw by 2014. If they wish to do it safely, they wouldnt dare try any funny business.



Well i dont expect overseas Pakistanis to be pro Pakistan either

yeah just use them to send you money, what is it now foreign remittances bigger than your exports?
 
well CIA is hostile??
nope guyzz they r not hostile nor friends of any country....
they r just protector of national intrest and whoever will be in way of their national intrests they will show no mercy......
that's all....
now if Pakistan is in their way they r hostile to Pakistan...
if India will be in their way they will do same things.....
they were hostiles to Soviets in past.....
now priorities r changing soo r the American national intrests...
 
Well i dont expect overseas Pakistanis to be pro Pakistan either

Exactly how many overseas Pakistanis do you know or have investigated to make a sweeping generalisation like this?

Others have commented on this remark already, but your expectation here is incontestably refutable: it implies that all overseas Pakistanis are somehow anti-Pakistan. It would take exactly one counter-example to demolish this claim. Well, I am one of the so-called "overseas Pakistanis" and declare myself to be vehemently pro-Pakistan - much more, I should say, than some folks on this forum who post with a Pakistani location flag and denounce true patriots (like Zaid Hamid, to use your own example). Ergo, your expectation is false.
 
Exactly how many overseas Pakistanis do you know or have investigated to make a sweeping generalisation like this?

Others have commented on this remark already, but your expectation here is incontestably refutable: it implies that all overseas Pakistanis are somehow anti-Pakistan. It would take exactly one counter-example to demolish this claim. Well, I am one of the so-called "overseas Pakistanis" and declare myself to be vehemently pro-Pakistan - much more, I should say, than some folks on this forum who post with a Pakistani location flag and denounce true patriots (like Zaid Hamid, to use your own example). Ergo, your expectation is false.

The argument goes both ways you know. Our current President MR. Zardari is an overseas Pakistani. Look where our country stands now. As per what i said, you should have read the statement that i was replying to before commenting.
 
The argument goes both ways you know. Our current President MR. Zardari is an overseas Pakistani. Look where our country stands now. As per what i said, you should have read the statement that i was replying to before commenting.

This is the best that you could come up with? Not only have you ignored and/or misunderstood the point I was making, but you have also used the opportunity to make the calumnious (and false) allegation that I did not read xyxmt's comment in post #2.

Once again, here is the point: it is improper and incorrect to accuse all overseas Pakistanis of being anti-Pakistan. Generalisations of this sort, where you accuse entire groups of people based on the actions of the few, are never right. Mr Zardari, to use your example here, does not represent or act on behalf of overseas Pakistanis, irrespective of whether or not he qualifies as one himself. The conspiracy against Pakistan is international and multi-faceted in nature, and involves actors as diverse as outsiders, native Pakistanis themselves as well as overseas Pakistanis. It is wrong to single out just one group from this set and selectively ignore others. Get it now?
 

Back
Top Bottom