What's new

Pakistani troops fire on intruding U.S. choppers

Pakistan should seriously consider the last part of this post. America has been stabbing Pakistan for a very long time. India cannot be the main threat to Pakistan because without the economic and technological support of the west, India is nothing. Pakistan should have developed a strategy based on the real threat to Pakistan but unfortunately for too long Pakistan failed to do that. However, it's better late than never.

Lets not really argue that India is powerful because of west or it is powerful without west support. What really matters is that India is not nothing today. It is 'something' today.
Knowing ur adversary strengths only helps; it gives u another reason to get united,work harder,making rationale decisions and to get stronger.
 
1. Cut their food and oil supply and everything else that comes from PK + electricity that is sent to US and NATO bases on expense of the Pak people....
2. Shoot em down 5-6 times, and use the excuse tactics "sorry, we thought it was the terrorists"..
3. Spend some billions of dollars on Media worldwide.
4. Contact all Pak community leaders worldwide to gather economical and media support.
5. Join forces with IRAN, And all tribes that are against Us.
6. Stop the f... war on terror, and start fighting the KAFIR's.
7. Get Russia and china signedup on our side.
8. Use Nuke deterrent and get some long range missiles.
9. Join Iran to blow the hell out of ISRAELian M.F!
10. Give Nuke's to all Muslim countries for $$$ and use it to buy best goods from all over.
11. India may try to take advantage of this, so line up 100k forces along the boarder and
50-60 short and long range missiles with WARHEADs targeting every military, airbase,
major city in India, and give them no excuse. If they try as much cross 1m over our
boarder, Fire em all. That should keep them from taking any sort of advantage of
this situation. They will not dare to think of taking advantage. Desperate times demand
desperate measures..
12. Point Some short/long range missiles with warheads on NATO and US bases in
Afghanistan + Karzai's residens, iraq + all their naval vessels in Pak, indian and gulf
region + Israel (Agar marre ge to Sabb ko le karr marre ge)...
13. Grow some balls.. War has started what ever way you look at it. Some will say doing
all this is declaration of war, and a war we cant win. But if we do all i have mentioned
in this list, do you think any country in the world would want to start a war with
PAKISTAN?
14. We need a Strong Leader. Eliminate all old, and get new Strong leaders.
15. Love and support your country no matter what.

With such measures, i am sure no FORCE on earth would Seriously Attack Pakistan.

*und maro Pain *odo ki...

Rehan

I take it that you safely live in the west and wish Pakistan to be reduced into another Zimbabwe. Keep it up and your wish will come true.

Regards

:crazy:
 
If there was no incursion why did the Americans flee?

How did you know that Americans fled ? Please grow up. The Americans are not as stupid as U wish us to believe, otherwise Gen M would have not backed down when they threathened war on all supporters of Taliban a few years back. Please see the situation in Khurram province and how much control the armed forces have before u think they should take on the US.

Regards
 
Indeed - hence all of the recrimination on this forum directed at the US because of her pursuit of a deeply flawed policy that attacks another nations sovereignty - all to show that it is 'doing something'.

The US should stop acting like an enemy.

Dear AM,

To clap you need two hands. If you think all US policies are bad and the Pakistan Army policies are good then you are signing your own death warrant. Time to introspect why more than 1000 people have been killed in Khurram province in fights between tribals in the last one year.

Regards
 
Be affraid! Be very affraid! Booo - U affraid yet? Well, U.S are 10 feet tall and employ magical weapons - and when they are shot ded, they don't die and when you show those bodies on TV (something they don't get to see on US tv) they don't show mangled, broken and bloody - Be affraid bubba!


So what might the 10% plan be? Glad u asked:

Facing Islamist chaos and America's Rambo, Pakistan is turning to No 10

Asif Ali Zardari will discuss his radical new vision in Downing Street today, knowing Washington can derail everything

Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark The Guardian, Tuesday September 16 2008

After claiming to have spent nine years nurturing democracy in Pakistan and festooning the country's military dictatorship with $11bn in aid, the Bush administration's policy is careering out of control, as US soldiers trade bullets with the forces of what was once a most-favoured ally in the "war on terror". On Sunday night, Pakistan border troops fired on a raiding party of American commandos emerging from two Chinooks in an attempt to cross on foot from Afghanistan into the Pakistan village of Angoor Adda. They had no permission to be there.

This was the latest in a series of forays into Pakistan sovereign territory taken by US special forces at the behest of President Bush. In July he signed an executive order to sidestep Pakistan's freely elected government in the rush to claim al-Qaida scalps - especially Osama bin Laden's. In the past six weeks, US missiles have rained down on Pakistani villages, with Predator drones lighting up the country's tribal belt and hunter-killer teams dropping into Pakistan's villages in the dead of night.

All good timing for the Republicans: these red-blooded offensives play well in America's heartlands; the ailing Bush and his party have been re-branded, Rambo-style, as sidestepping an untrustworthy ally to take the fight directly to the terrorists. However, it is spectacularly bad timing for Pakistan, the raids commencing just three days before Asif Ali Zardari was sworn in as president. During his inaugural speech in Islamabad on September 6, more than 30 civilians were killed by a suicide bombing in Peshawar as the local population vented its anger at the incursions.


Zardari has used a family trip to Britain to gain an urgent sit-down with Gordon Brown. Yesterday he flew in to see off his oldest daughter, Bakhtawar, 18, who is studying English literature at Edinburgh University.

Today in Downing Street, Zardari will warn the prime minister that the latest twist in the war on terror will "only lead to greater disaster, more hatred, more alienation, more ghettos, more recruits, and more violence". Without Britain's help in holding back the US, buying the new Pakistan government breathing space, anti-American sentiment will wash over the country; Zardari and his Pakistan People's party coalition will be unable to stop it spiralling out of control.

If it sounds like blackmail, with Zardari bargaining by placing a gun to his own head - an age-old diplomatic tactic of Pakistan leaders - consider the evidence. Pakistan is in the grip of Islamist-driven chaos with the white pennants of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the country's home-grown medievalists, flying from government offices across North and South Waziristan. North-West Frontier Province, its once cosmopolitan capital of Peshawar and its former ski resorts in the Swat valley, have been encircled by the movement's Vice and Virtue Brigades. The strategically vital province of Baluchistan is simmering; and the economic engine of Karachi is witnessing an explosion of violence
.

Zardari does not convince everyone, given the welter of corruption charges that once circled him, but he is not the only one worried. The fears of the normally silent Pakistan armed forces were reflected this weekend in an extraordinary article by Lieutenant General Shahid Aziz, who served as the chief of general staff under Zardari's predecessor, Pervez Musharraf. Gen Aziz accused Musharraf of inviting the Americans to fight their war on Pakistani territory, without consulting the army: "Militants will multiply by the thousands," he warned. "The Pakistani army will not be able to support US operations. Financial crisis and street unrest will create chaos in the country and war will spread."

Today Gordon Brown will be asked to put his faith in Zardari, an acquisitive man once reviled in this country and his own as "Mr 10%". Days after the assassination of his wife, Benazir Bhutto, Zardari produced a handwritten will; and now he has resurrected a series of radical measures drafted by Benazir shortly before her death. The documents make for compelling reading: "The enemy the west has identified [a handful of al-Qaida and Taliban leaders] is the wrong target. The concern of the developed world is motivated entirely by a single consideration - its own safety. You cannot wage wars against ideas. Fight them with different means
."

One of these - already shown to the foreign secretary, David Miliband - is the formation of an intergovernmental counter-terrorist body. Its happy-clappy working title, United Against Terrorism, belies a serious ambition. Zardari will call for all of Pakistan's regional neighbours or mentors - Russia, China, Afghanistan, Iran and India among them - to sit together and think through the crises. The US and the UK would also be present but in the background. "A consensus is necessary so the war on terror is not considered an American war but is owned by all countries," the paper concludes. Not only would such a move distance Washington from Islamabad, it would also feed into the counter-insurgency strategy for Pakistan's border areas that Zardari will also be revealing today in Downing Street.

Referred to by his aides as a new Marshall plan, it calls for an international consortium led by the UK to reconstruct Pakistan's tribal areas, unravelling extremist infrastructure that grew massively during the Musharraf years - when more than a dozen proscribed terrorist organisations were allowed to regroup under new names, and pro-jihad madrasas trebled to 13,000. Zardari proposes a reconstruction budget to revitalise everything from local transport to water supplies. His aides have drawn up employment schemes and proposed wholesale reforms of partisan local police and local government. The families of those who die in the struggle against extremism are to be paid compensation, and those who are injured will have their medical costs covered.

Finally, Zardari is offering to establish a special intelligence cell at the Pakistan High Commission in London, which will act as a storehouse for information about Islamists and terror threats, tracking British Pakistanis as they make their way from the UK to Pakistan - a concrete boon to British counter-terrorism officials, who recently revealed that eight out of 10 current investigations in the UK have a close connection to Pakistan. Given the spectacular collapse of the airline bomb plot trial this month, this cell might tip the balance in Zardari's favour. "We all want fewer blunders," Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Pakistan's high commissioner in London, said
.

In a notoriously difficult foreign policy arena, injected with precious few new ideas, there are signs that Brown is ready to take Zardari seriously. The Foreign Office has already played a vigorous and little known role in getting Zardari elected president: Sir Mark Lyall Grant, the FCO political director, used his offices to elegantly strong-arm Pakistani political factions exiled to the UK into voting for the PPP's presidential candidate. In a daring move, the MQM party, which has offices in north London - and was set against the PPP - was talked into becoming temporary champion of a PPP machine it had previously only bombed and shot at
.


· Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark are the authors of Deception: Pakistan, the United States and the Global Nuclear Weapons Conspiracy


Are u affraid yet?? Please be affraid, don't make come U.S come down there...
 
Election year, Legacy, An economic meltdown, Zero credibility in the world, a WOT that is like a war on islam, now goaded in to attacking what U.S officials say, is their own ally -- And this we are supposed to believe is the behaviour of a super power - Rome in decline


Sep 16, 2008

US forces the terror issue with Pakistan
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - The United States had been aware of North Vietnamese sanctuaries in Cambodia since 1966, but the US avoided attacking them due to possible adverse international repercussions. However, as the going got tougher in Vietnam, in 1969 president Richard Nixon extended the war theater to Laos and Cambodia, which only plunged the region in a quagmire and ultimately led to the conclusive defeat of American interests.

Similarly, in the South Asian war theater, Washington has been aware of Taliban and al-Qaeda sanctuaries in the Pakistani tribal areas for many years, but President George W Bush deferred to Pakistan to deal with them
.

This has changed in recent months, given the Taliban's resilience in Afghanistan, largely made possible by their bases inside Pakistan. US Predator drones and US special forces have carried out five attacks in September inside Pakistan's tribal areas, even though Washington is well aware of the consequences of such cross-border action.

These include a possible revolt in Pakistan's establishment against the "war on terror" and a spurt in anti-American sentiment, which could cost the pro-US administration of President Asif Ali Zardari dearly.

Clearly, Washington is frustrated with the situation in Afghanistan, and it no doubt rankles that the American "empire" is being thwarted by a bunch of "cave-dwellers".


In the years following the fall of the Taliban in 2001, Pakistan handed over a number of al-Qaeda members to the US. Whether or not they were significant was not so much the point as the arrests created a feeling in the US that the "war on terror" was working, and funds and troops for it flowed freely.

Those arrested included Abu Zubaida, the alleged military operations commander of al-Qaeda, in 2002. A joint Pakistan-US raid in the southern port city of Karachi created a stir on the first anniversary of September 11, 2001, when the alleged 20th member of Hamburg cell, Ramzi Bin Shib, was arrested. He was unable to join his co-conspirators in the September 11 attacks in the US as he could not get a visa for the US.

Then come Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, an alleged mastermind of September 11, followed by many others who made the headlines. Altogether, Pakistan handed over 700 "icons of terror", but in 2007 the arrests stopped. There are several reasons for this.

The US placed high rewards on the heads of suspects, for instance, US$25 million for Khalid Sheikh. But invariably, all but less than 1% went to the Pakistani government, and not the people involved in the investigations and capture, or the informants.

Further, the Pakistani courts under now deposed chief justice Chaudhary Iftikahar began to challenge extra-judicial arrests, which put a brake on the free-wheeling security agencies.

And last but not least, al-Qaeda members became much more cautious about moving or living in Pakistan's cities, instead retreating to safe havens in the tribal areas or in Afghanistan, where it was virtually impossible to track them down.

This situation was not good enough for the US, especially in a presidential election year. The first US demand came in 2007 in president Pervez Musharraf's time.

But as al-Qaeda members were no longer roaming the streets of the cities, they could not be delivered. The best Pakistan could do was provide information on their likely locations and descriptions of them.

Pakistan and the US then agreed on intelligence-sharing, with the understanding that the Americans, with their superior technology, would pinpoint suspects, notify Islamabad, then attack them.

According to a top Pakistani official who was a part of the recent strategic dialogue with the Americans, none of these understandings was documented - they were verbal agreements between US officials and Musharraf. When Zardari's government was reminded of such agreements by Washington, a Pakistani official who had accompanied Musharraf confirmed them, although there were no minutes. On this basis, the US went ahead with its drone and special forces attacks inside Pakistan.

Now, for the first time, there are efforts to institutionalize Pakistan-American relations as well as that between the Central Intelligence Agency and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence
.

There are many issues to sort out.

Pakistan keeps on giving the US information on the hideouts of Baitullah Mehsud, the anti-Pakistan tribal warlord and self-proclaimed head of the Tehrik-i-Taliban. But Washington wants information on Taliban figures such as Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son Sirajuddin, as well as veteran mujahid Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whose arrest or killing would better boost the image of the "war on terror" in the US.

Similarly, Pakistan has repeatedly given information on Egyptian ideologue Sheikh Essa, who was once hit by a drone attack but only wounded, whereas the US wants the low-down on Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri - a much more difficult or even impossible task
.

The US is not waiting around, though, and it can be expected more attacks will be made into Pakistan, even though, in its impatience, the US is notching up new Mai Lais - the mass murder of hundreds of unarmed citizens in Vietnam by US Army forces on March 16, 1968.

Last week, more than 20 women and children were killed by US special forces in a raid on Angorada in South Waziristan. The US later admitted the soldiers had followed the wrong target
.

As with the bombing of Cambodia and Laos nearly 40 years ago, the latest US offensive could mark a decisive turning point in South Asia
.



I hope so. :cheers:
 
Please do your own research - now, that's a good boy - cheers!
 
Always Neutral / Never fair


What you may consider "neutral" is an issue you have to deal with - alas. And what you can and cannot find is a reflection of the effort you put into things - don't you, think?

You seem to think that you are being asked to believe or support - well, let me set you straight, you are not being asked anything of the sort - this is a discussion forum, discuss, research, educate - can you do that? Sure you can, so stop being a ninny and get busy.

You ever read Asia Times? Who is not familiar with SSS? Apparently you. So with that little bit to help you along, go see if he is "neutral" - that's a good boy.:cheers:
 
Always Neutral / Never fair


What you may consider "neutral" is an issue you have to deal with - alas. And what you can and cannot find is a reflection of the effort you put into things - don't you, think?

You seem to think that you are being asked to believe or support - well, let me set you straight, you are not being asked anything of the sort - this is a discussion forum, discuss, research, educate - can you do that? Sure you can, so stop being a ninny and get busy.

You ever read Asia Times? Who is not familiar with SSS? Apparently you. So with that little bit to help you along, go see if he is "neutral" - that's a good boy.:cheers:

Would not hurt you metacarpels less if you just provided me a link ? Carry on the propoganda and the world will believe that Pakistan has something to hide.

Regards
 
Dear AM,

To clap you need two hands. If you think all US policies are bad and the Pakistan Army policies are good then you are signing your own death warrant. Time to introspect why more than 1000 people have been killed in Khurram province in fights between tribals in the last one year.

Regards

Dear AN,

Try and read the posts in context please (again) - it was a rebuttal to an inflammatory comment by Logic, about which I notice you had nothing to say.

Where have I argued that Pakistan's policies are perfect? On these threads most of us have typically criticized the responses of the GoP and its 'peace deals'. So for you to come on here to spew your sham 'neutrality' by focusing on comments taken out of context is ludicrous.

The GoP policy has not been perfect, but that does not take away from the fact that the US policy in Pakistan (if the current events do reflect a a change in policy that will continue) has even greater flaws.

The best I have gotten out of people who are supportive of such US action is essentially a variation of, "well they have to do something". Nothing more. It ends at, well we have to kill XYZ because Pakistan isn't doing it'. Perhaps Pakistan isn't, but what exactly are the long term objectives here? How does this policy help in that sense? You ask those questions and most people go off in a huff and start railing about 'Times up!'

The status quo may be far from ideal, but any discerning analyst will have seen the change that is (or had been until these events) occurring within Pakistan - the GoP's rejection of peace deals with those that do not surrender, a significant escalation in military operations and especially in terms of using air power, and finally, rising support from some sections of the media in support of the WoT.

All of the above in a domestic environment beset with economic and administrative issues that have a significant impact on the stability of the current government.

Sorry, but I continue to see US actions, such as those recently, in the scenario that exists as counterproductive, and far worse than the status quo - therefore, if Logic's rationale is to be used, it is the US that is acting as an enemy here. One doesn't have to 'do more' just for the sake of 'doing more' - consequences have to be considered as well.
 
Always

carry on begging to be helped and the world will think you are not only lazy but intellectually feeble - now we won't want that, it just won't do, so chop, chop - that's a good boy.:cheers:
 
Dear AN,

Try and read the posts in context please (again) - it was a rebuttal to an inflammatory comment by Logic, about which I notice you had nothing to say.

Where have I argued that Pakistan's policies are perfect? On these threads most of us have typically criticized the responses of the GoP and its 'peace deals'. So for you to come on here to spew your sham 'neutrality' by focusing on comments taken out of context is ludicrous.

The GoP policy has not been perfect, but that does not take away from the fact that the US policy has even greater flaws.

The best I have gotten out of people who are supportive of such US action is essentially a variation of, "well they have to do something". The status quo may be far from ideal, but any discerning analyst will have seen the change that is (or had been until these events) occurring within Pakistan - the GoP's rejection of peace deals with those that do not surrender, a significant escalation in military operations and especially in terms of using airpower, and finally, rising support from some sections of the media in support of the WoT.

All of the above in a domestic environment beset with economic and adminsitrative issues that have a significant impact on the stability of the current government.

Sorry, but I continue to see US actions, such as those recently, in the scenario that exists as counterproductive, and far worse than the status quo - therefore, if Logic's rationale is to be used, it is the US that is acting as an enemy here.


Dear AM,

If it helps I donot support the US policy or the GOP policy or the UK policy but I find it equally hard to understand why would any one in the border areas help anti-establishment forces in their war against their own Govt. 50 years after independence.

Regards
 
Back
Top Bottom