US lawmakers call Pakistan 'terrorist state', 'schizophrenic ally'

[Nitin Goyal]

@jungibaaz... before reading this article...can you tell me who has written this and can you back this up with links ? Thanks....

 

[Icarus]

Pakistan focused on militants targeting inside Pakistan but did not touched the other group.

Qari Zia-ur-Rahman: Afghan Taliban commander fighting in Bajaur is now comfortable in Kunnar region of Afghanistan after his network in Bajaur Agency was dismantled. Afghanistan is not our mandate. If the ISAF and ANA cannot clean their own mess, then they should at least have the courtesy to accept it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

i know..after all it is PDF..but tell you what,its me who is providing links and its you pakistani members who just shrugged it off by saying "where is the proof"???tell me,what is "enough hard evidence" for you guys???

Please stop ranting about your links and post the relevant excerpts from those links that credibly prove Pakistani State complicity in supporting terrorism.

The media is full of headlines that often sensationalize news or are based on the opinion of an individual being interviewed/quoted in the article, but that does not count as evidence.

With such a plethora of 'links', as you claim, you should have no problems providing the excerpts that prove Pakistani State complicity in terrorism - so until then, all posts ranting about the links you posted will be deleted.

 

[Jungibaaz]

@jungibaaz... before reading this article...can you tell me who has written this and can you back this up with links ? Thanks....

Nitin goyal ji, it's not an article, it's one of my own replies.

You could visit the thread itself on the other forum, however I wont post the name of the forum or a link to that forum on this thread. I'll PM you it.

 

[Mercenary]

That is all well and good except Jordan had a king who was worried about the fact that his country was being over run by Palestinians and I also believe at one point they outnumbered the Jordanians themselves he wasn't worried about his country becoming a terrorist hotspot he was worried about his own *** and having to be the minority in his own damn country. Unfortunately Pakistan doesn't have a King who would worry about his seat and instead we have a half bit democracy and back stage politics which prevent us from taking any action for our own self interests.

PS- Zia ul Haq helped lead the Jordanian army in their operations interesting fact lol

I know about Zia.

What happened was Pakistan defeated India in 1965 War and Israel defeated Arabs in 1967 War. So Jordanians asked the Pakistanis to train their forced. Zia was send to train their Armored Divisions when the fighting broke out. He took command of the 2nd Armored Division and fought the PLO and Syrians.

 

[Icarus]

why they need a scapegoat especially in the form of Pakistan who is doing so much and out of capacity and a nuclear armed state ... why dear sir ? Anything logical about it ...

They need Pakistan as the scape goat to reinvoke the Pressler Amendment when they leave and limit Pakistani influence in Afghanistan.

 

[Icarus]

nope..check your posts from page 4.you don't even replied to my posts...you replied to Nitin's post..or maybe you are talking about this line...

"Or your assertions are based on hear say rather than facts. One of the two."

thats not even a proper reply..

look..i can only post what i can collect from net,i can't post a live admission from the mouth of OBL..right???now you choose what i should post???

You're not reading well enough I posted a reply to Zardari's quote saying that India at the same time was supporting the Northern Alliance. Look it up.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes but you have been accused off being selective.

And the US has withdrawn its forces from Eastern Afghanistan, claiming it was 'too stretched' to maintain them there, and that particular part of Eastern Afghanistan has been used as a sanctuary by Mullah FM (who ran away from Swat) and other TTP leaders who have launched dozens of large scale terrorist attacks into Pakistan, targeting soldiers and civilians alike.

So when talking about 'selective military action', please keep in mind that the 'World's mightiest military alliance' has itself openly claimed that it does not have the capacity to maintain a presence everywhere in Afghanistan and conduct military operations everywhere in Afghanistan, and has openly declared a 'selective military presence'.

So why blame Pakistan for being 'selective' given immensely fewer economic and military resources than NATO? Pakistan chose to combat the most severe threats to Pakistan first, and NATO chose to selectively combat the most severe threats to NATO forces first.

 

[SP!TF!R3]

Please stop ranting about your links and post the relevant excerpts from those links that credibly prove Pakistani State complicity in supporting terrorism.

The media is full of headlines that often sensationalize news or are based on the opinion of an individual being interviewed/quoted in the article, but that does not count as evidence.

With such a plethora of 'links', as you claim, you should have no problems providing the excerpts that prove Pakistani State complicity in terrorism - so until then, all posts ranting about the links you posted will be deleted.

there is nothing relevant for you guys...i can post dossier on 26/11..but you'll refute it by saying "Evil Bharatis' link"...why would i bother when i already posted 3 links that clearly sated the truth???and if you don't believe in media,then you shouldn't ask about links..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What is the difference between Pakistan and the doctor...both took money to find OBL.....the only difference is that doctor found OBL

That question has been answered several times already - go check out the 'Fai' thread in the World Affairs Section.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

there is nothing relevant for you guys...i can post dossier on 26/11..but you'll refute it by saying "Evil Bharatis' link"...why would i bother when i already posted 3 links that clearly sated the truth???and if you don't believe in media,then you shouldn't ask about links..

You can post the relevant information from the 'Dossier' that actually contains evidence showing that Hafiz Saeed was involved in perpetrating the Mumbai attacks or evidence that shows the ISI was involved.

But from what I understand, there is no credible evidence in the Indian 'dossiers' - they are nothing but a bunch of speculation and hearsay. But if there is some concrete and credible evidence in them, go ahead. Of course keep in mind that the US pretty much debunked India's 'dossier and plenty of evidence against HS' argument but issuing a 'reward for information/evidence that would implicate HS in terrorism'. If India's evidence was so strong, the US would not have needed to announce a reward for evidence now would they?

And what part of those 'links' specifically provide 'credible evidence implicating the Pakistani State in supporting terrorism'? If you have the links and have read them beyond the headlines, then provide the excerpts so that we can debate the actual points raised in those 'links'.

Posting a 'link' does not prove anything - it is the content that needs to be debated and the content that will support your argument.

 

[Hulk]

You can post the relevant information from the 'Dossier' that actually contains evidence showing that Hafiz Saeed was involved in perpetrating the Mumbai attacks or evidence that shows the ISI was involved.

But from what I understand, there is no credible evidence in the Indian 'dossiers' - they are nothing but a bunch of speculation and hearsay. But if there is some concrete and credible evidence in them, go ahead. Of course keep in mind that the US pretty much debunked India's 'dossier and plenty of evidence against HS' argument but issuing a 'reward for information/evidence that would implicate HS in terrorism'. If India's evidence was so strong, the US would not have needed to announce a reward for evidence now would they?

And what part of those 'links' specifically provide 'credible evidence implicating the Pakistani State in supporting terrorism'? If you have the links and have read them beyond the headlines, then provide the excerpts so that we can debate the actual points raised in those 'links'.

Posting a 'link' does not prove anything - it is the content that needs to be debated and the content that will support your argument.

You know this right that it is very hard to prove a terrorism charge against any country. The main reason is that has to be done in external country and you can always question external countries police and judicial system.

However there is another thing as perception based on what others see and you know perception matters a lot.

And Pakistan did some wonderful job in creating a bad perception. Some of this was not needed and indeed bad decision by people in charge.

examples
1) When the world was watching incidence of 26/11 you gave an impression and righfully so that you are trying to cover up.You denied Kasab was your citizen for 4 weeks, It was impossible that you could have not known about his identify in less than 5 days.
2) OSAMA incidence, when he was found in Pakistan even if you did not supported the way you acted after was not great. You are not punishing someone for helping find OSAMA, while you could not find so far who helped OSMA stay in Pakistan. This should not have been hard after you know he was living their, you have shown no progress in that front.

 

[Cheetah786]

I agree with US lawmakers...another view

Time to call Pakistan what it is

Jonathan Kay:=He sleeps and dreams how to spread hate against Muslims that's prolly why he can only get a job with National post and Not a real News paper.
National post is financed By special interest as this paper has almost no circulation and if there is a loser or 2 buying it probably because they cant afford to buy real news papers

 

[airmarshal]

Jonathan Kay:=He sleeps and dreams how to spread hate against Muslims that's prolly why he can only get a job with National post and Not a real News paper.
National post is financed By special interest as this paper has almost no circulation and if there is a loser or 2 buying it probably because they cant afford to buy real news papers

That article was such a load of crap. But it does make Indians happy.

 

[Secur]

Yes, in the 90s, when we were supporting the Taliban insurgency. However, at the same time, India was actively supporting their ideological nemesis, the Northern Alliance. Would that count as "Nurturing" terrorist groups?

Do you need some extra help , my friend ?

Why do not the people blame the US which started the whole menace in the first place ? Blinded by propaganda ?