What's new

Pakistanis lose, US wins

Plain and simple..

Yup it is.

Which world body calls Mukti Bahini a terrorist organization? Name a couple please

And where it is written that an organization is only terrorist if some foreign body declares it a terrorist organization.

Even if it is from Pakistan, as long as it is internationally accredited.

And why their was military operation against them if they weren't consider terrorists. Come on I know you aren't that dumb. ;)

If it was, then Pakistani leadership wouldnt have gone and apologised to Bangladesh for 1971

That was too create friendly relationship with BD. Nothing to do with Mukti Bahni's terrorist activities.

Bluster is fine, but really doesnt achieve much

Exactly. This is what I have been trying to tell you and other Indians. Poor guys get banned before understanding this reality. :)
 
Yup it is.



And where it is written that an organization is only terrorist if some foreign body declares it a terrorist organization.



And why their was military operation against them if they weren't consider terrorists. Come on I know you aren't that dumb. ;)



That was too create friendly relationship with BD. Nothing to do with Mukti Bahni's terrorist activities.



Exactly. This is what I have been trying to tell you and other Indians. Poor guys get banned before understanding this reality. :)

Still waiting for any governmental organization's (even Pakistani) declaration of MB as a terrorist organization. And yes, there needs to be a credible organization (foreign or not) to declare another org as a terror outfit. You and I dont have that authority.

The military operation that you mention actually was closer to terrorism and is termed as a genocide by NGO's and other organizations all over the world. In that instance, the world only recognizes the Pakistani Army as the terrorist. I also think there was some recent discussion of war crime trials against Paksitani army leadership in East Pakistan..
 
Still waiting for any governmental organization's (even Pakistani) declaration of MB as a terrorist organization. And yes, there needs to be a credible organization (foreign or not) to declare another org as a terror outfit.

Still waiting that where it is written that a terrorist is a terrorist if it is said so by foreign organization...

You and I dont have that authority.

We have the authority to understand that who is terrorist and who is not by judging the acts of someone.

The military operation that you mention actually was closer to terrorism and is termed as a genocide by NGO's and other organizations all over the world. In that instance, the world only recognizes the Pakistani Army as the terrorist.

The military action was against Mukti Bahni and obviously because they consider it to be terrorist. Actions speak louder than words.

I also think there was some recent discussion of war crime trials against Paksitani army leadership in East Pakistan..

So what? Doesn't changes the fact it was mukti bahni who started terrorism and got a fitting response. After all they were just discussions and will always remain discussions.

:azn:
 
Still waiting that where it is written that a terrorist is a terrorist if it is said so by foreign organization...



We have the authority to understand that who is terrorist and who is not by judging the acts of someone.



The military action was against Mukti Bahni and obviously because they consider it to be terrorist. Actions speak louder than words.



So what? Doesn't changes the fact it was mukti bahni who started terrorism and got a fitting response. After all they were just discussions and will always remain discussions.

:azn:

Not necessarily foreign. Any Pakistani establishment with right credentials will do. And I guess you didnt understand.. In that operation, it was the Pakistani army that was considered as a terrorist by the world.

And if your definition of fitting response is to hand over a part of your country to those who you consider terrorist ;), then yes, you gave them a fitting response. :azn:
 
Not necessarily foreign. Any Pakistani establishment with right credentials will do.

But question is still the same... Let me repeat it again.

where it is written that a terrorist is a terrorist if it is said so by foreign organization.... Pakistan government consider them terrorist so did military action against them. As I said actions speak louder than words.

In that operation, it was the Pakistani army that was considered as a terrorist by the world.

As I said discussions dear discussions. Nothing more. :)

And if your definition of fitting response is to hand over a part of your country to those who you consider terrorist

Weren't you crying about atrocities by PA against them. I think you were. :)

Let's repeat you phrase once again. The perfect distinction of good and bad terrorists. And as I said it works both ways. ;)
 
@Areesh
Are you hinting that pakistan govt/army considers afghan taliban good terrorists and ttp bad terrorists?
 
But question is still the same... Let me repeat it again.

where it is written that a terrorist is a terrorist if it is said so by foreign organization.... Pakistan government consider them terrorist so did military action against them. As I said actions speak louder than words.
Pakistani govt indulged in political repraisals and genocide . Not anti terrorist action.

As I said discussions dear discussions. Nothing more. :)
Every thing on this forum is exactly that. :azn:


Weren't you crying about atrocities by PA against them. I think you were. :)

Let's repeat you phrase once again. The perfect distinction of good and bad terrorists. And as I said it works both ways. ;)

No distinction. Actually its bad terrorist and worse terrorist.

Bad in case of the ones attacking India in J&K and worse terrorist was the GoP (i wont term the army per se as terrorist since they were just following orders by chain of command)

Mukti Bahini was the some of the victims who got angry and hit back..


Its going a bit off topic, so we can agree to disagree and move back to the topic if its all right with you?
 
Pak1stanFirst- Pakistan plans no new offensives | Defence

MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS

LAHORE, Pakistan -- Despite the Obama administration's pleas last week at a top-level "strategic dialogue" and a new $2 billion U.S. military aid pledge, Pakistan has no near-term plans to launch new offensives in its tribal area to help the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan, officials and analysts said Friday.

The focus of U.S. demands is North Waziristan, on the Afghan border, where Pakistan has provided sanctuary to the Haqqani network since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The Haqqani network is allied with the Afghan Taliban, which seeks the overthrow of the U.S.-backed government of President Hamid Karzai in Kabul. The U.S. government views Haqqani as dangerously close to al-Qaida, whereas Islamabad apparently considers Haqqani a reliable ally that must be part of a political outcome in Afghanistan.

"The U.S. is pursuing a policy of isolating Haqqani," said Simbal Khan, an analyst at the Institute of Strategic Studies, a government-financed research center in Islamabad. "Pakistan wants to include all the border (insurgent) groups."

Pakistan sees Haqqani as a component of any final political deal, and due its share of power in any future government, but Washington thinks that the group is among the "irreconcilables," analysts said. Pakistan had backed the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which ruled much of the country from the mid-1990s to 2001, and its relationship with Haqqani goes back to the 1970s.

A meeting of top U.S. and Pakistani civilian and military officials in Washington last week culminated in the pledge of $2 billion in military equipment, to be used for counterterrorism operations. The additional aid is subject to congressional approval.

U.S. analysts in Washington said the Pakistan military couldn't launch a new offensive in the tribal areas in the foreseeable future even if it intended to, because its transport aircraft and helicopters are committed to flood-relief operations.

Pakistan has launched military offensives in all six other parts of the tribal area, and operations are still under way in Bajaur, Mohmand and South Waziristan. Action in North Waziristan isn't on the current agenda, Pakistani officials said, and even if an operation started there, it's expected that it would be much more limited than the "steamroller" offensive seen in South Waziristan a year ago, so Haqqani could be left untouched.

"Our preference is to consolidate our gains elsewhere in the tribal area," said Abdul Basit, the spokesman for Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. "The time and scope of any operation (in North Waziristan) will be determined by Pakistan alone."

Basit said that if the Afghan government reached out to all the insurgent groups, including Haqqani, "Pakistan would support that."

Earlier this week, the Pakistani military commander for the northwest of the country, Lt. Gen. Asif Yasin Malik, said that it would take at least six months to clear militants from Bajaur and Mohmand.

"It's a question of timing," Malik said. "Everywhere there are reasons to go in, and there are reasons not to go in."

Pakistan not only hosts the Afghan Taliban leadership - the so-called Quetta Shura - and the Haqqani network of veteran jihadist Jalaluddin Haqqani, but also the third big Afghan insurgent force, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, another longtime Islamist warlord. That gives Islamabad huge leverage over any negotiated settlement. While Washington equates Haqqani with al-Qaida, for Pakistanis it's clear that Haqqani hasn't joined the al-Qaida agenda of war against Pakistan.

The Haqqani network, now run by the aged Jalaluddin's son, Sirajuddin, is careful not to be involved in the campaign of violence run by Pakistani jihadist groups, in particular the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, or the Taliban Movement of Pakistan. Another North Waziristan-based jihadist group, led by Gul Bahadur, also focuses exclusively on the fight in Afghanistan.

"Islamabad feels it would be suicidal to act against Bahadur and Haqqani, especially when the Pakistanis are struggling to combat renegade Taliban forces elsewhere," Stratfor, a U.S.-based geopolitical consultancy, says in a report this week. "It is unclear that the United States and Pakistan can come to terms on which Taliban can be negotiated with. Until that happens, North Waziristan will remain a major source of tension between the two sides."

The Haqqani network relies entirely on Pakistan for a haven, as it has no permanent territory in Afghanistan, unlike the Taliban, who hold sway over large chunks of land.
Haqqani is credited with a series of attacks on the interests of Pakistan's archenemy, India, in Afghanistan, including assaults on the Indian Embassy, a hostel where Indians stay in Kabul and Indian contractors working in Afghanistan. That has proved Haqqani's loyalty and worth to the Pakistani establishment, analysts said.

Earlier this year, the Pakistani military reportedly arranged a meeting between representatives of Haqqani and Afghan officials in Kabul.

(Shah is a McClatchy Newspapers special correspondent. Jonathan S. Landay contributed to this report from Washington.)

Source: Miami-Herald

PakistanFirst - National Interest First!
 
Mukti Bahini was the some of the victims who got angry and hit back..
What about crimes commited by Mukti bahini against bihari population of Bengladesh? Does those actions have any accountability?
 
Before we conclude on who has won and who has lost I feel it is pertitent to determine the victory conditions.

The British ruled through a policy of divide and rule. The United States after the second world war pursued its global domination through a different policy. This policy was summarrized by Mr Krishna Menon while warning the British on American Hegemonical designs over newly amerging states. The view expressed in April 1947 states

"THE OBJECT OF US POLICY WAS TO CREATE AN ECONOMIC, POLITICAL AND MILITARY VACUUM IN INDIA WHICH AMERICA WOULD FILL"

The United States hence fulfills its objectives by creating or exploiting Military, Financial and Political vacuums.

Ever since our creation we have been dependent on the US in all of these areas. Yet slowly and steadily we are trying to achieve sovereignty. Each of our leaders in a constraint enviornment has contributed. The latest being the acquition of c-7 AMRAAMs with block 52 F-16s. The block 52 F-16s have been acquired for the War against terror. Getting the AMRAAMs included is indeed something for which our leaders deserve credit.

So the bottom line is who has exploited whom more. That country should be declared the winner. At present I feel things are pretty even.
 


JUST when one thought the Pakistan government, and especially the Pakistan military, had decided to see sense and refrain from committing to an operation in NWA, Foreign Minister Qureshi reveals that all is ready for exactly such an operation with 34,000 troops already deployed. The only thing is when the operation would begin – and that is the only decision that seems to have been left to the Army. So, once again, our rulers have succumbed to US pressure and will embark on another series of killings in NWA – that is, against more Pakistani citizens – at a time when the US is itself begun to move towards talks with the Taliban. In fact, NATO itself has been ferrying the Taliban to locations in Afghanistan in preparation for such talks and US Envoy Holbrooke has formally stated that the war in Afghanistan cannot be won militarily and talks with the Taliban would take place.

While one can understand this particular government’s desperation to prostrate itself before US diktat, it is inexplicable why the Pakistan Army would agree to undertake operations that will neither bring stability to the country nor resolve its own terrorism problem. All that will happen is that there will be more civil-military antagonism, especially in sensitive areas of the country. Meanwhile, the US will also succeed in isolating Pakistan from all Afghan Pushtuns fighting the US occupation forces in Afghanistan. So the US will talk to the Taliban while weakening them politically and shift the centre of gravity of their unsuccessful war into Pakistan’s FATA region while they make their exit.


Surely the Pakistan Army cannot be so ready to compromise the security and stability of the country for a few weapon systems from the US – especially when even these will not be state of the art and will be subject to use restraints by the US. The Americans have already informed the Indians that the weapons they will sell to Pakistan will have their assurance that they will not be used against India.

While there are serious question marks over the outcome for Pakistan of the just-concluded Strategic Dialogue – with no movement forward on a possible debt write-off , ROZs and market access – it would appear that once again the US got exactly what it wanted from this Dialogue. And the worst of it is that simply to renew what are dubious bonds with the US, the Pakistan military has conceded to undertake the NWA operation simply to help the US in its dialogue with the Taliban just as it had earlier shown its complicity in the drones policy which has killed thousands of innocent Pakistanis. It is time Pakistan’s decision and policy makers reverted to looking after Pakistan and its people’s interests first.

Iam not commenting about the title, but i think US is too arrogant and selfish in their goals,

The correct title would be, US wins or want to win and it doesnt give a **** if pakistan has won or lost.
 
The US is simply ruthless
"Not a dollar more and not a day longer" that is how they operate
 
Back
Top Bottom