US suspends military aid to Pakistan. Military says it doesn't need it.

[Meengla]

Which one? China.

I dont know.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

I see. Thanks.

And before you accuse me again of twisting your arguments, did you mean that the situation is more like an army that wants to be paid full rent (and then some), but then to pick and choose what it does in return? To my feeble mind, that sounds quite like paying a big local thug who will beat up only some of the smaller local thugs, but not the ones he is already cozy with, while his own house burns down.

I don't think it works that way, does it?

I am asking this with the clearest of intentions, mind you, and I can only hope that you can see that.

would you call the noble soldiers of KSA as local thugs too who took care of the Bahrain issue? or since they did it for their ruling counsins they would be called Ghazi instead?

before you accuse me of twising your words and mocking you, I want to ensure you that I am asking this with the pureest of intents and my heart is almost half as clean as Imam Khan.


How do you view the payment to military personal of the UN peace forces that are deployed all over the world? specially when the peace keepers are from Pakistan?
Do you find it as “interesting”. My question is as innocent and my understanding is a s feeble as yours so do take it the wrong way.

Or maybe closer to home, what do you think of Mr Allah-Yar and Rahimdad getting paid by UNDP for their duties in villages and tribal areas? Is that not their national & moral duty to help their “Muslim” brothers anyway?

Coming back to the payment of the UN peace forces, if the same operation in the tribal areas is done by Pakistan army under the UN umbrella will you still find the payments in this regard as “interesting” and their role same as mercenaries still?
What if the peace keepers in the tribal area are from another country? Will that be acceptable or still “interesting?”

Is the problem (I mean interest) only Pak army specific if it is getting paid? Would it help (in making this less “interesting”) if Pakistan army does it all for free?

Help me to understand because I cant decide if re-branding Pak Army from mercenaries to bonded labour will make us sleep better at night?

What if a “brotherly” Muslim country does this job here for us? Preferably the noble “Arabs”.
How “interesting” do you find the work of the Saudi Security forces that tested their guns against the political dissidents of Bahrain?

Please clarify how that act was different from hiring a mercenary? Did the King of Behrain not request his Salafi cousins in the KSA to quell the uprising? Were those forces not supposed to defend KSA only?

 

[VCheng]

would you call the noble soldiers of KSA as local thugs too who took care of the Bahrain issue? or since they did it for their ruling counsins they would be called Ghazi instead?

Yes, the "noble" soldiers of KSA acted as thugs in the Bahrain case.

before you accuse me of twising your words and mocking you, I want to ensure you that I am asking this with the pureest of intents and my heart is almost half as clean as Imam Khan.

... and I am answering you equally sincerely.

How do you view the payment to military personal of the UN peace forces that are deployed all over the world? specially when the peace keepers are from Pakistan?

International peace keeping operations funded by the UN as part of an overall mandate are correct. The role of the Pakistan Army in UN operations is commendable.

Do you find it as “interesting”. My question is as innocent and my understanding is a s feeble as yours so do take it the wrong way.

So "DO" take it the wrong way? or "DON'T"? Please allow me to try and rectify some of your "feebleness", with your permission of course, all with the best of reciprocated intentions, obviously.

Or maybe closer to home, what do you think of Mr Allah-Yar and Rahimdad getting paid by UNDP for their duties in villages and tribal areas? Is that not their national & moral duty to help their “Muslim” brothers anyway?

UNDP programs for social sector development are totally different. Please explain your comment a bit more, for MY feeble mind.

Coming back to the payment of the UN peace forces, if the same operation in the tribal areas is done by Pakistan army under the UN umbrella will you still find the payments in this regard as “interesting” and their role same as mercenaries still?
What if the peace keepers in the tribal area are from another country? Will that be acceptable or still “interesting?”

An operation under the UN umbrella is different, like I said before. Of course, Pakistan will need to go the UN, get a mandate, and then allow a UN flagged international force, to undertake those operations. PA flying their own flag and conducting an operation on THEIR soil should NOT be paid by any foreign entity. Doing so makes them little more than hired mercenaries acting as thugs.

Is that too hard to understand? Well, for you, it might be.

Is the problem (I mean interest) only Pak army specific if it is getting paid? Would it help (in making this less “interesting&#8221 if Pakistan army does it all for free?

No, asI have said above, there is consistency in my point of view that does NOT single out the Pakistan Army, for those who can think above a certain puerile level.

Help me to understand because I cant decide if re-branding Pak Army from mercenaries to bonded labour will make us sleep better at night?

There is no "re-branding" needed. The whole Pakistani nation (save the few privileged elite) are the "bonded labor" for the "mercenaries", and those facts are evident for all the world to see.

What if a “brotherly” Muslim country does this job here for us? Preferably the noble “Arabs”.
How “interesting” do you find the work of the Saudi Security forces that tested their guns against the political dissidents of Bahrain?

Well, you might invite enough "retired" personnel from a "brotherly" country to help as was recently done in Bahrain for the Saudi thugs as a reciprocal gesture, if you get my drift. But then again, that would be an entirely Pakistani choice.

Please clarify how that act was different from hiring a mercenary? Did the King of Behrain not request his Salafi cousins in the KSA to quell the uprising? Were those forces not supposed to defend KSA only?

Like I said in response to your first point, I agree with you that the Saudis acted little better than thugs and mercenaries in the Bahrain case.

I hope you can mull on these responses and please do come back with more questions to comments that I would like to respond to, if worthy. Thank you!

 

[VCheng]

My dear Irfan Baluch Sahib Sir Bhaijan: These verses may help you understand my point a bit better:

Ay Tair-E-Lahooti, Uss Rizq Say Mout Achi
Jis Rizq Say Aati Ho, Parwaz Main Kotahi
Aain-E-Jawan'mardi, Haq Goi-O-Bay Baaqi
Allah Kay Sheron Ko, Aati Nahin Rubaahi

 

[Irfan Baloch]

My dear Irfan Baluch Sahib Sir Bhaijan: These verses may help you understand my point a bit better:

Ay Tair-E-Lahooti, Uss Rizq Say Mout Achi

on the contrary my brother.. that rizq is actually giving our Shaheen more lift and endurance to do the job which is impossible to perform at the moment as all the faith & fearlessness has been spent on flights above Swat and waziristan.

hence I call this Rizq "Taieed a Ghaaibi" if you get my gist.
Pakistan said it can fly with all this bebaqi etc but thats its range
US said ok here is some extra lift .. while you are at it.. why not show your Jawamardi in those areas too as they will be eventually trouble for you in the future.

so pakistan said oh thanks.. we are getting paid to do somehting that suits us and supports our over all approach to these cockroaches so why not
(well thats where the Shaheen finds out that the rizk becomes forbidden fruit from time to time and the shaheen just goes back to its original position which it made by itself for it self)

 

[VCheng]

on the contrary my brother.. that rizq is actually giving our Shaheen more lift and endurance to do the job which is impossible to perform at the moment as all the faith & fearlessness has been spent on flights above Swat and waziristan.

hence I call this Rizq "Taieed a Ghaaibi" if you get my gist.
Pakistan said it can fly with all this bebaqi etc but thats its range
US said ok here is some extra lift .. while you are at it.. why not show your Jawamardi in those areas too as they will be eventually trouble for you in the future.

so pakistan said oh thanks.. we are getting paid to do somehting that suits us and supports our over all approach to these cockroaches so why not
(well thats where the Shaheen finds out that the rizk becomes forbidden fruit from time to time and the shaheen just goes back to its original position which it made by itself for it self)

Ok Sir, I will accept your point - with one important caveat:

The implications of creating an impression internationally that the PA can be hired is not good at all in the long run.

What do you think?

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Ok Sir, I will accept your point - with one important caveat:

The implications of creating an impression internationally that the PA can be hired is not good at all in the long run.

What do you think?

on the face of it and for the sake of moral stand point I cant agree more
but today’s world is governed by corporate media so if you are not in the good books you are damned either way

I think under the current situation Pakistan should give the implications of bad impression as much importance as much is given by Israel to all the hot air blown in the and around the UN corridors. (not something that is desirable, but its about self interest and preservation)
by the way I still owe you the answer to your post number 420+3

 

[VCheng]

on the face of it and for the sake of moral stand point I cant agree more
but today’s world is governed by corporate media so if you are not in the good books you are damned either way

I think under the current situation Pakistan should give the implications of bad impression as much importance as much is given by Israel to all the hot air blown in the and around the UN corridors. (not something that is desirable, but its about self interest and preservation)
by the way I still owe you the answer to your post number 420+3

Excellent point!

(Does 420+3 add up to post # 423? I will await the response in due course. )

 

[asad71]

As you live in Canada, you can look out your window and inform us when the white man "collapses".

"3. Supposing tomorrow at a SAARC Summit they announce to pull out all Mission troops. The White Man will collapse in no time."

1.Why the hell shall we continue to fight your wars and die? This has got to end; and our eyes are opening to realities. Don't you see what his happening to your stooges in Maghreb/W Asia?
2. It's time you moved your soft b---s into the heat of Africa/Asia and fought the dirty wars programmed by Neo Cons/Money Barons/Arms Peddlers.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Yes, the "noble" soldiers of KSA acted as thugs in the Bahrain case.

that’s interesting, because the Ghairat brigade either goes quiet (when graphic illustration of that operation is shown in the electronic media) or in some cases, justifies the house of Saud and its actions.

... and I am answering you equally sincerely.

I am glad to know that, because we need to imitate Imam Khan & Molvi Hair transplant Sherif while discussing the national issues

International peace keeping operations funded by the UN as part of an overall mandate are correct. The role of the Pakistan Army in UN operations is commendable.

What mandate? UN, its resolutions etc become “irrelevant” for US presidents when this organisation doesn’t “do enough” to be in line with US policies.

Read more in http://instructional1.calstatela.edu/tclim/F03_Courses/midterm_A.pdf
Why is the role of Pakistani forces in the far flung places where the people cant care less about us be more commendable than our own backyard? This is realist vs idealist debate but I don’t want to go down that route.

My point is, if its Okay to get paid for performing military duties in other parts of the world just because there is a mandate from an organisation that cant breathe or operate under the weight of USA & its allies and is pretty much impotent when it comes to enforcing its resolutions on the thugs that have their feet on its neck then might as well “stuff” the mandate and do as directed by the US that runs the UN.
If Kyani or Zardai today stamp their feet today and say they wont do the American bidding without UN mandate then America will ask how many resolutions do they want?

So "DO" take it the wrong way? or "DON'T"? Please allow me to try and rectify some of your "feebleness", with your permission of course, all with the best of reciprocated intentions, obviously.

No, “don’t” take it he wrong way, permission denied to rectify. I belong to a sovereign country I will never allow you to rectify my typo (but you can choose to do it on your own and let me know once you are done)

UNDP programs for social sector development are totally different. Please explain your comment a bit more, for MY feeble mind.

Whether they are different or not. (as they don’t involve guns). the concept is the same i.e. the righteous and sovereign citizens shouldn’t accept money from outsiders for the socioeconomic work of their own country. This will make them “rented” labour, like their uniformed brothers aka rented “mercenaries”. Therefore they should just run some symposiums and seminars, condemn the Pakistan army and its generals, shed tears about the poverty & mismanagement, give examples of Korea & Singapore and blame the army once again consider the job done.

An operation under the UN umbrella is different, like I said before. Of course, Pakistan will need to go the UN, get a mandate, and then allow a UN flagged international force, to undertake those operations. PA flying their own flag and conducting an operation on THEIR soil should NOT be paid by any foreign entity. Doing so makes them little more than hired mercenaries acting as thugs.

Like I said earlier if under UN flag its different then, just ask Mr Munter and he will get us as many flags we want. I am sorry, I don’t understand why not the local soldiers by paid by the outsiders (in this case payment sugar coated with UN resolutions) when someone else coming here can. Wont you rather have your own soldiers than some Dutch or Norwegian soldiers?

How is dealing with local terrorism problem thuggish if there is somebody who shares this goal and is willing to support this effort in kind? Why so much sensitivity towards it? And how suddenly it becomes acceptable if its done on your own and with the risk of running out of steam due to lack of resources? Have we not gone past that stage yet? Its been 10 years already

Is that too hard to understand? Well, for you, it might be.

No, I understand now, if someone else (say Thailand) comes waving the UN flag and starts the operation in the tribal areas, it is ok because there is a UN mandate and also all expenditures are paid for (which is fine too as the peacekeepers are outsiders).

But Pakistan Army should never accept such funds and
1. either scale down or completely abandon all military operations that had American backing.
2. Or, continue to do it and deplete its resources and present itself as a tempting target all for the sake of gairat and the image (for all its worth)

No, asI have said above, there is consistency in my point of view that does NOT single out the Pakistan Army, for those who can think above a certain puerile level.

that was uncalled for and below the belt if it was aimed at me, I already expressed myself as a simpleton and there was no need to rubbing it in.

so if I understand correctly, you are saying, it doesn’t matter whether or not Pakistan army is getting paid for these operations. Since there is American interest involved so its wrong. …..?
to my very humble understanding and those too who I have met personally and talked about (by those I mean officers that have been part of some of these operations) these operations are inevitable, sooner or later, whether or not such operations are in line with the American strategy in this region.

There is no half way, half hearted approach in the army. We are fighting an enemy that is not bound by any UN or Geneva conventions, it will use all the deceptions, all the tricks of trade to stay elusive and cause problem for the state, hence an operation in one place means that the likely exit routes and possible rallying points have to be checked and interdicted from being used by this faceless enemy.

We should be glad that for now American’s share our goals and are encouraging us to seek and destroy the terrorists at a broader front but eventually we will need to do it on our own and then the costs and hardships will really pinch us.

There is no "re-branding" needed. The whole Pakistani nation (save the few privileged elite) are the "bonded labor" for the "mercenaries", and those facts are evident for all the world to see.

without going off topic, what do you suggest to free this bonded labour from the mercenaries?

Well, you might invite enough "retired" personnel from a "brotherly" country to help as was recently done in Bahrain for the Saudi thugs as a reciprocal gesture, if you get my drift. But then again, that would be an entirely Pakistani choice.

yea, yea as much choice as a husband has when he hides under the bed when his wife comes after him to give him a spanking. Despite her repeated warnings he says that he chooses to stay under the bed and wouldn’t bow down to her intimidations.

Re inviting brothers, it reminds me what Ameer Mawvia did to the people of Madina and what Hijaj Bin Yousef did to people of Iraq while dealing with the political dissent. May God help us and never bring that day.

Like I said in response to your first point, I agree with you that the Saudis acted little better than thugs and mercenaries in the Bahrain case.

word ruthless springs to mind. They even sniped women medical staff attending wounded protesters. What they did to the villages under the complete media blackout would eventually come out one day.

I hope you can mull on these responses and please do come back with more questions to comments that I would like to respond to, if worthy. Thank you!

Like I said earlier don’t rub it in or you and I might get burned.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

GRAPES ARE SOUR ...

I love fox they are such a cute adorable creature

 

[VCheng]

that’s interesting, because the Ghairat brigade either goes quiet (when graphic illustration of that operation is shown in the electronic media) or in some cases, justifies the house of Saud and its actions.

But Sir, there is grave error in assuming that I am part of any brigade on either side of the "ghairat" fence, however defined. I have said this many times before and I will say it again: I have no ulterior motives. I try to think independently and logically. I love both Pakistan, and USA. My participation at PDF is borne of a deep-seated desire to help and contribute to both these countries as best as I can, or am allowed to.

Now may I ask why you found my statement about Saudi involvement in Bahrain interesting? Or was it merely unexpected for you?

I am glad to know that, because we need to imitate Imam Khan & Molvi Hair transplant Sherif while discussing the national issues

I would suggest that we find some better ideals that these two examples so that our discourse here continues to be exemplary. Given the standards set by these persons, it would not be too hard to find better ideals!

What mandate? UN, its resolutions etc become “irrelevant” for US presidents when this organisation doesn’t “do enough” to be in line with US policies.

Read more in http://instructional1.calstatela.edu/tclim/F03_Courses/midterm_A.pdf
Why is the role of Pakistani forces in the far flung places where the people cant care less about us be more commendable than our own backyard? This is realist vs idealist debate but I don’t want to go down that route.

Neither do I, so let me just concede this point to you Sir.

My point is, if its Okay to get paid for performing military duties in other parts of the world just because there is a mandate from an organisation that cant breathe or operate under the weight of USA & its allies and is pretty much impotent when it comes to enforcing its resolutions on the thugs that have their feet on its neck then might as well “stuff” the mandate and do as directed by the US that runs the UN.
If Kyani or Zardai today stamp their feet today and say they wont do the American bidding without UN mandate then America will ask how many resolutions do they want?

There is a world of difference in conducting an operation on a native population on your own soil under your own flag vs a blue flag, no matter how politicized the blue flag has become, but I won't belabor the point.

No, “don’t” take it he wrong way, permission denied to rectify. I belong to a sovereign country I will never allow you to rectify my typo (but you can choose to do it on your own and let me know once you are done)

I respect your sovereignty Sir, and thank you for the clarification that I requested. I will not take anything you say the wrong way.

Whether they are different or not. (as they don’t involve guns). the concept is the same i.e. the righteous and sovereign citizens shouldn’t accept money from outsiders for the socioeconomic work of their own country. This will make them “rented” labour, like their uniformed brothers aka rented “mercenaries”. Therefore they should just run some symposiums and seminars, condemn the Pakistan army and its generals, shed tears about the poverty & mismanagement, give examples of Korea & Singapore and blame the army once again consider the job done.

Again Sir, the distinction is that civilians and army is the uniform and its associated rules, but even setting that aside, civilian foreign aide does come with its own strings attached, and my point was that uniformed armed forces should best stay clear of such strings. However, as I have already conceded your argument about the necessity of accepting US money as "Taib-e-Ghaibi", I cannot argue my point any more than this.

Like I said earlier if under UN flag its different then, just ask Mr Munter and he will get us as many flags we want. I am sorry, I don’t understand why not the local soldiers by paid by the outsiders (in this case payment sugar coated with UN resolutions) when someone else coming here can. Wont you rather have your own soldiers than some Dutch or Norwegian soldiers?

If you still don't understand my point, I will concede to you on grounds of not being able to explain it in any simpler terms than what I have done previously.

How is dealing with local terrorism problem thuggish if there is somebody who shares this goal and is willing to support this effort in kind? Why so much sensitivity towards it? And how suddenly it becomes acceptable if its done on your own and with the risk of running out of steam due to lack of resources? Have we not gone past that stage yet? Its been 10 years already

The problem of terrorism has gone on far too long and has seeped into society far too much already. Since you have already justified US monetary support as "Taib-e-Ghaibi" and I have accepted that too, I cannot argue any further on this to make you see the very real distinction.

No, I understand now, if someone else (say Thailand) comes waving the UN flag and starts the operation in the tribal areas, it is ok because there is a UN mandate and also all expenditures are paid for (which is fine too as the peacekeepers are outsiders).

But Pakistan Army should never accept such funds and
1. either scale down or completely abandon all military operations that had American backing.
2. Or, continue to do it and deplete its resources and present itself as a tempting target all for the sake of gairat and the image (for all its worth)

Fair enough, but please keep in mind that you have already agreed with me that the implications of creating an impression internationally that the PA can be hired is not good at all in the long run:

I think under the current situation Pakistan should give the implications of bad impression as much importance as much is given by Israel to all the hot air blown in the and around the UN corridors.

...... and that is precisely why Pakistan and its military are beginning to lose out internationally and, more critically, domestically, too. The full price of those impression will be paid very heavilty in the coming period, I am afraid.

that was uncalled for and below the belt if it was aimed at me, I already expressed myself as a simpleton and there was no need to rubbing it in.

No Sir, it was NOT aimed to you, but rather at a majority of other posters here waving all sorts of flags. There are very few here on PDF that can carry on an intelligent discussion far above my self-admittedly moronic level, and I respect you as one of them. If I offended you at all, which was NOT my intent, I do apologize. I am perhaps more of a naive simpleton than you may realize.

so if I understand correctly, you are saying, it doesn’t matter whether or not Pakistan army is getting paid for these operations. Since there is American interest involved so its wrong. …..?
to my very humble understanding and those too who I have met personally and talked about (by those I mean officers that have been part of some of these operations) these operations are inevitable, sooner or later, whether or not such operations are in line with the American strategy in this region.

These operations have been inevitable for years now, the "sooner or later" part is long gone.

There is no half way, half hearted approach in the army. We are fighting an enemy that is not bound by any UN or Geneva conventions, it will use all the deceptions, all the tricks of trade to stay elusive and cause problem for the state, hence an operation in one place means that the likely exit routes and possible rallying points have to be checked and interdicted from being used by this faceless enemy.

Very correct. However, may I remind you of Clausewitz's dictum that war is simply the expression of politics by other means, and thus is only one part of a multi-faceted solution to the faceless enemy you are describing. To ignore this would be disastrous for Pakistan, and there-in lies the greatest danger to the State.

We should be glad that for now American’s share our goals and are encouraging us to seek and destroy the terrorists at a broader front but eventually we will need to do it on our own and then the costs and hardships will really pinch us.

That time has come, simply put.

without going off topic, what do you suggest to free this bonded labour from the mercenaries?

My reply would indeed go off-topic, but I hope to be able to take this train of thought in another thread with you at some point.

yea, yea as much choice as a husband has when he hides under the bed when his wife comes after him to give him a spanking. Despite her repeated warnings he says that he that he chooses to stay under the bed and wouldn’t bow down to her intimidations.

Thank you for that levity in a serious discussion.

Re inviting brothers, it reminds me what Ameer Mawvia did to the people of Madina and what Hijaj Bin Yousef did to people of Iraq while dealing with the political dissent. May God help us and never bring that day.

All I can say is that God helps those who help themselves.

word ruthless springs to mind. They even sniped women medical staff attending wounded protesters. What they did to the villages under the complete media blackout would eventually come out one day.

I could go into further details about Bahrain, but, again, it would be off-topic here. Some other thread perhaps?

Like I said earlier don’t rub it in or you and I might get burned.

Please clarify whether you meant that as a threat or merely a caution, so that my response is correct in its appropriateness, without any misunderstanding by you, or PDF Admin, who already might not be looking at me too kindly due to their own mindsets.

Peace.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

But Sir, there is grave error in assuming that I am part of any brigade on either side of the "ghairat" fence, however defined. I have said this many times before and I will say it again: I have no ulterior motives. I try to think independently and logically. I love both Pakistan, and USA. My participation at PDF is borne of a deep-seated desire to help and contribute to both these countries as best as I can, or am allowed to.

I respect that,
thanks for your thoughts
after a long time we had a chance to engage and you have my gratitude
I must admit that I found your post trail with AM a bit sarcastic so I started in kind but found your response equally enjoyable.
don’t worry about upsetting me as I have a thick hide. Like yourself I love my country and have respect and prayers for all peace loving people.

I intentionally kept my responses a mix bag of some serous points and some gags (no matter how lame) good that you found them helpful in keeping the atmosphere light.

I didn’t find any of your responses unexpected because I had already understood where you stand re current issues. It was just a veiled appreciation that you have the courage to speak your mind and this is something that needs to be appreciated.

Back to the topic I would I like to conclude this

In my opinion, US-Pak relations have two sides. One is public and one is private and both are a mix of military + civilian partnership. Internally both appreciate and understand each other’s frustrations, long term concerns and shortcomings. On the military level both speak the same language and understand each other’s concerns. And even White house tones down itself and acknowledges Pakistani concerns and its contribution. But post Bin -Laden and resurgence of Taliban have had their due effect on the relations and for valid reasons. But the good thing is that both are willing to and going ahead with ironing things out. Both have invested and sacrificed too much to give up on this fight.

The reality of this so called military aid is that the money has been used by the government for debt servicing while the army has been using its own allocated budget but that doesn’t change the fact that Pakistan still got money from US taxpayer which should be best spent on American healthcare and welfare. But it was the US national security and the presence of terrorists in the Pak- Afghan border that posed threats to USA and thus compelled the previous and current American administration to pay Pakistan in CSF, or aid or reimbursements ( for using the facilities and route etc) to not only help in dealing with the terrorists within its own boundaries but also the ones that don’t really give any thought to sovereignty of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

It seems that the reasons given by the US administration for postponing the aid have been missed out by both the public and the media in both countries and they are not about dissatisfaction with army operations or delay in expanding them to NW (American generals explained to US select committee that Gen Kyani’s forces are already stretched thin and need to consolidate the gains in the current locations) the reason seems to be the disagreement about the CIA operations and its personal in Pakistan, hence the visit of Gen Pasha few days back.
For the sake of this region and every peace loving individual that maybe affected directly or indirectly, we all hope that Pakistan and US can reach and understanding and cooperate to reach the WoT end game to their favour. US can start this by providing the intelligence to Pakistan about the whereabouts of Al Zuahiri. If KSM (the master mind of 9/11 and the beheading of Daniel Pearl could be found and caught by ISI then why not Al Zawhiri? Pakistan did the right thing by requesting Mr Panetta to share intelligence regarding Al Zawhiri.

 

[VCheng]

I respect that,
thanks for your thoughts
after a long time we had a chance to engage and you have my gratitude
I must admit that I found your post trail with AM a bit sarcastic so I started in kind but found your response equally enjoyable.
don’t worry about upsetting me as I have a thick hide. Like yourself I love my country and have respect and prayers for all peace loving people.

I intentionally kept my responses a mix bag of some serous points and some gags (no matter how lame) good that you found them helpful in keeping the atmosphere light.

I didn’t find any of your responses unexpected because I had already understood where you stand re current issues. It was just a veiled appreciation that you have the courage to speak your mind and this is something that needs to be appreciated.

Thank you for the kind words, and the sentiments, which I truly reciprocate in kind and in kindness.

AM and I will get along just fine as both he and I get to know each other better, of that I am sure.

Back to the topic I would I like to conclude this........................

That is a great conclusion which I can accept. I look forward to further discussions with you. I can promise you fair and honorable arguments, in light of my limited knowledge, varied experiences and international perspectives, and rooted in absolute sincerity for both the countries that I truly love.

Over and out! (for now at least!)