dr.umer
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,460
- Reaction score
- 0
Last edited:
US to hit militant safe havens in Pakistan
- Thread starter moha199
- Start date
What a load of crap!
First of all Pakistan Army is one of the best and most professional armies in the world, recognised as such by friends and foes. Pakistan also happens to be the largest contributer to UN Peacekeeping Forces and we're proud of our achievements which include victories in some of the most dangerous conflict zones around the world. Have you forgotten about Mogadishu where PakBat saved mighty Americans' as$ from Somalian militants?
Some are quick to blame PA and Musharraf for everything that goes bad in Pakistan without having the least amount of knowledge or clue of what actually happening.
For your information Pakistan is under a civil government now and PA get her orders from Islamabad. In other words she doesn't make policy but folows one. FATA's consitutional rights forbid any military action by PA inside her territory, Frontier Corps have been resurrected to guard and defend borders and to maintain law and order and they are not as professional or potent as PA.
Where did you get the figure of 60%, please provide a link to support your claim.
About the tribal people living in peace till Musharraf took over, again read your history befor you ask this question again. It happens to be during Musharrafs time that Taliban were driven out of Tora Bora and nearby area's by continous Nato's attacks and carpet bombings and took their refuge in FATA. Is Musharraf or PA to blame for this? No, its the tribes who helped, armed and harbored them honoring their "code of hospitality and loyalty and brotherhood"...and ofcourse in the name of hi-jacked modern day Jihad which is all bur Islamic.
Ever wondered why TTP was founded in FATA and why she failed to gain support or importance in rest of Pakistan??
So never ever question the integrity or loyalty of our Army or blame our blood on her, Pakistan exist today because of these brave men. If it was to civil leaders Pakistan would have been disintegrated long ago. We owe PA our gratitude, not attitude.
Blame the Governemt, false democracy, ***** quom, feudal system and other cancers of our society for the mess we are in today. None of them loves Pakistan as much as our soldiers do, none of them will give their own blood for the sake of our country, PA will....none of them will defencd and save Pakistan when invaded, PA inshallah will!
dr.umer
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,460
- Reaction score
- 0
What a load of crap!
First of all Pakistan Army is one of the best and most professional armies in the world, recognised as such by friends and foes. Pakistan also happens to be the largest contributer to UN Peacekeeping Forces and we're proud of our achievements which include victories in some of the most dangerous conflict zones around the world. Have you forgotten about Mogadishu where PakBat saved mighty Americans' as$ from Somalian militants?
Some are quick to blame PA and Musharraf for everything that goes bad in Pakistan without having the least amount of knowledge or clue of what actually happening.
For your information Pakistan is under a civil government now and PA get her orders from Islamabad. In other words she doesn't make policy but folows one. FATA's consitutional rights forbid any military action by PA inside her territory, Frontier Corps have been resurrected to guard and defend borders and to maintain law and order and they are not as professional or potent as PA.
Where did you get the figure of 60%, please provide a link to support your claim.
About the tribal people living in peace till Musharraf took over, again read your history befor you ask this question again. It happens to be during Musharrafs time that Taliban were driven out of Tora Bora and nearby area's by continous Nato's attacks and carpet bombings and took their refuge in FATA. Is Musharraf or PA to blame for this? No, its the tribes who helped, armed and harbored them honoring their "code of hospitality and loyalty and brotherhood"...and ofcourse in the name of hi-jacked modern day Jihad which is all bur Islamic.
Ever wondered why TTP was founded in FATA and why she failed to gain support or importance in rest of Pakistan??
So never ever question the integrity or loyalty of our Army or blame our blood on her, Pakistan exist today because of these brave men. If it was to civil leaders Pakistan would have been disintegrated long ago. We owe PA our gratitude, not attitude.
Blame the Governemt, false democracy, ***** quom, feudal system and other cancers of our society for the mess we are in today. None of them loves Pakistan as much as our soldiers do, none of them will give their own blood for the sake of our country, PA will....none of them will defencd and save Pakistan when invaded, PA inshallah will!
It is not the army that is wrong...
>>>Under a cloud, Zardari ready to lead Pakistan
By Jane Perlez Published: September 4, 2008
ISLAMABAD: Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of Benazir Bhutto, is set to become president Saturday, an accidental ascent for a man known more as a wheeler-dealer than as a leader. He will start his tenure burdened by a history of corruption allegations that cloud his reputation even as they remain unproven.
He has won the reluctant support of the Bush administration, which views him as a pliable partner in the campaign on terror. Still, Zardari will assume the presidency with what Washington and many here consider to be untested governing skills at a time when a tough Taliban insurgency threatens the very fabric of the nuclear-armed state of 160 million people.
It remains to be seen how forcefully he will act against militants in the face of Pakistani public opposition to American pressure. It is also unclear how much influence he exerts over the still-powerful military and the Inter-Services Intelligence agency.
The editor-in-chief of the Daily Times, Najam Sethi, a supporter of Zardari, said his elevation would suit the Americans. Zardari, he said, "will learn on the job." And indeed, Zardari, 53, has shown canny political skills as he moved in the last two weeks to outmaneuver his rival and former coalition partner, Nawaz Sharif.
But while the economy is in a downward spiral and foreign exchange reserves are perilously low, Zardari's reputation for using political perches to benefit himself and friends has left many here and in Washington worried about how he will restore economic confidence.
There are concerns about the oversight of a $15 billion package of nonmilitary assistance proposed by the Democratic vice presidential candidate, Senator Joseph Biden, and backed by the Bush administration.
Zardari declined to be interviewed for this article. The minister for information, Sherry Rehman, said it was too "sensitive" for Zardari to talk before the election, which was called after President Pervez Musharraf resigned on Aug. 18.
Pakistan has only $6 billion in foreign exchange reserves, disappearing at the rate of close to $2 billion every month to pay for oil and food. Several prominent economists and businessmen interviewed said much investor nervousness stems from mistrust of Zardari, who served as minister of investment in Bhutto's government when it was accused of demanding illicit payments in return for deals that exceeded the accepted levels of corruption in Pakistan.
Two recent decisions by Zardari showed a disregard for Pakistan's alarming deficits, they said, insisting on anonymity because they did not want to speak out publicly against the next president.
In April, Zardari told the then-finance minister, Ishaq Dar, that he wanted the price the government paid farmers for wheat to be raised substantially as a way of rewarding an important constituency in the province of Punjab, according to two participants in the discussion who feared repercussions if they used their names. The government would then have to heavily subsidize the cost of wheat to the consumer.
When Dar asked Zardari how he thought the government would pay for the subsidy, Zardari replied: "Print the notes," according to the two participants, a government official and an associate of Zardari's. In an effort to solve the impasse over the cost of the subsidy, it was suggested that Zardari form a committee of experts.
"I am the expert," Zardari said, according to his associate.
The two also described another incident in May as the budget was being prepared. Zardari decided to scrap a proposed capital gains tax after a visit from a group of influential stockbrokers from the Karachi stock exchange, they said.
The revenue from the capital gains tax and from an income levy tax proposal on the rich would have paid for an income support program for the poorest Pakistanis, they said. More than 50 percent of Pakistanis live on less than $2 a day, according to the World Bank.
In Zardari's defense, the finance minister, Naveed Qamar, said this week that political stability would be restored to Pakistan once Zardari was president and that the unsettled economy would benefit from the new political order.
Others were not so sure.
"Zardari will wield unprecedented power for a civilian president," said Maleeha Lodhi, who was appointed as Pakistan's ambassador to the United States by Bhutto and then by Musharraf. "But he may lack authority in view of his checkered and controversial past."
Washington is trying to persuade Pakistan to take a stronger stance against the militants who are using the northern tribal areas as a sanctuary to attack American and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Despite their reservations, American officials prefer Zardari to Sharif because they believe Zardari's Pakistan Peoples Party to be more secular and liberal than Sharif's party and more likely to confront militants.
Zardari has displayed a sudden willingness to take on the Taliban, saying last week that he would ban them and freeze their assets, a starting point strongly favored by the State Department, though it would have limited impact on the militants.
"Zardari is a businessman," said a Western diplomat. "He says to himself: 'I know I need American support. What do they want? They want this,"' meaning a stance against the Taliban.
But as Zardari moved to the fore, some of his efforts to please Washington have exposed his uneasy relationship with the military and Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, the powerful spy agency, whom he accused of assassinating his wife last December.
An effort to control the agency and impress the Bush administration failed in late July. Zardari and a senior official at the Interior Ministry, Rehman Malik, directed the prime minister's department to issue a public notification that the agency would report to the Interior Ministry; the military swiftly ordered the prime minister to retract the notice.
Washington has charged that the spy agency is involved in sabotaging American interests by supporting the Taliban in the tribal region.
"His first attempt to get control of the army and ISI was a total failure that showed a naivete about how the army and the ISI work," said Bruce Riedel, a former member of the National Security Council in the Clinton administration who is now advising the campaign of Senator Barack Obama on Pakistan.
Although Zardari will chair the body that has command and control over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, in reality, the military has the day-to-day management of the weapons.
In the five months at the head of the governing coalition that collapsed after pushing Musharraf from power, Zardari filled key posts in the government with people he knew from jail and from his time in exile. He refused to reinstate the chief justice of the Supreme Court, who was removed by Musharraf. His opponents say he feared the chief justice might have reversed an amnesty that allowed Zardari's corruption cases to be dropped.
Zardari was in jail from 1990 to 1993 after Bhutto's first term and from 1996 to 2004 after her second term. He has always maintained that the corruption charges, and a murder charge, were politically motivated by forces trying to minimize his influence, and that he refused offers for early release from prison.
In Britain, Zardari faced a civil case brought by the Pakistani government in connection with a country manor in southern England. The government argued that Zardari paid for the property with ill-gotten gains. In order to win a delay in the British courts, Zardari filed affidavits in early 2006 from two doctors in New York saying he was mentally unable to assist his lawyers.
According to the affidavits, first reported by The Financial Times, Zardari, who was living at the time at an elegant apartment building in Manhattan, and who friends said appeared to be in good spirits, suffered from dementia, major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.
The Pakistani high commissioner in London, Wajid Shamsul Hasan, who was recently appointed to the post by Zardari and is an old friend, said Zardari is now fit and well.
After the vote Saturday, he will live in the presidential palace, a white marble edifice in the center of the capital. There, behind the tall colonnades and long corridors, according to a close associate, he will have achieved three things he most covets.
As president he will have, according to the Constitution, immunity from prosecution. He will enjoy top security. And he will be provided with the rites of protocol that will allow him to appear on the world stage as a leader in his own right, and not just as the spouse of one.
>>>Under a cloud, Zardari ready to lead Pakistan
By Jane Perlez Published: September 4, 2008
ISLAMABAD: Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of Benazir Bhutto, is set to become president Saturday, an accidental ascent for a man known more as a wheeler-dealer than as a leader. He will start his tenure burdened by a history of corruption allegations that cloud his reputation even as they remain unproven.
He has won the reluctant support of the Bush administration, which views him as a pliable partner in the campaign on terror. Still, Zardari will assume the presidency with what Washington and many here consider to be untested governing skills at a time when a tough Taliban insurgency threatens the very fabric of the nuclear-armed state of 160 million people.
It remains to be seen how forcefully he will act against militants in the face of Pakistani public opposition to American pressure. It is also unclear how much influence he exerts over the still-powerful military and the Inter-Services Intelligence agency.
The editor-in-chief of the Daily Times, Najam Sethi, a supporter of Zardari, said his elevation would suit the Americans. Zardari, he said, "will learn on the job." And indeed, Zardari, 53, has shown canny political skills as he moved in the last two weeks to outmaneuver his rival and former coalition partner, Nawaz Sharif.
But while the economy is in a downward spiral and foreign exchange reserves are perilously low, Zardari's reputation for using political perches to benefit himself and friends has left many here and in Washington worried about how he will restore economic confidence.
There are concerns about the oversight of a $15 billion package of nonmilitary assistance proposed by the Democratic vice presidential candidate, Senator Joseph Biden, and backed by the Bush administration.
Zardari declined to be interviewed for this article. The minister for information, Sherry Rehman, said it was too "sensitive" for Zardari to talk before the election, which was called after President Pervez Musharraf resigned on Aug. 18.
Pakistan has only $6 billion in foreign exchange reserves, disappearing at the rate of close to $2 billion every month to pay for oil and food. Several prominent economists and businessmen interviewed said much investor nervousness stems from mistrust of Zardari, who served as minister of investment in Bhutto's government when it was accused of demanding illicit payments in return for deals that exceeded the accepted levels of corruption in Pakistan.
Two recent decisions by Zardari showed a disregard for Pakistan's alarming deficits, they said, insisting on anonymity because they did not want to speak out publicly against the next president.
In April, Zardari told the then-finance minister, Ishaq Dar, that he wanted the price the government paid farmers for wheat to be raised substantially as a way of rewarding an important constituency in the province of Punjab, according to two participants in the discussion who feared repercussions if they used their names. The government would then have to heavily subsidize the cost of wheat to the consumer.
When Dar asked Zardari how he thought the government would pay for the subsidy, Zardari replied: "Print the notes," according to the two participants, a government official and an associate of Zardari's. In an effort to solve the impasse over the cost of the subsidy, it was suggested that Zardari form a committee of experts.
"I am the expert," Zardari said, according to his associate.
The two also described another incident in May as the budget was being prepared. Zardari decided to scrap a proposed capital gains tax after a visit from a group of influential stockbrokers from the Karachi stock exchange, they said.
The revenue from the capital gains tax and from an income levy tax proposal on the rich would have paid for an income support program for the poorest Pakistanis, they said. More than 50 percent of Pakistanis live on less than $2 a day, according to the World Bank.
In Zardari's defense, the finance minister, Naveed Qamar, said this week that political stability would be restored to Pakistan once Zardari was president and that the unsettled economy would benefit from the new political order.
Others were not so sure.
"Zardari will wield unprecedented power for a civilian president," said Maleeha Lodhi, who was appointed as Pakistan's ambassador to the United States by Bhutto and then by Musharraf. "But he may lack authority in view of his checkered and controversial past."
Washington is trying to persuade Pakistan to take a stronger stance against the militants who are using the northern tribal areas as a sanctuary to attack American and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Despite their reservations, American officials prefer Zardari to Sharif because they believe Zardari's Pakistan Peoples Party to be more secular and liberal than Sharif's party and more likely to confront militants.
Zardari has displayed a sudden willingness to take on the Taliban, saying last week that he would ban them and freeze their assets, a starting point strongly favored by the State Department, though it would have limited impact on the militants.
"Zardari is a businessman," said a Western diplomat. "He says to himself: 'I know I need American support. What do they want? They want this,"' meaning a stance against the Taliban.
But as Zardari moved to the fore, some of his efforts to please Washington have exposed his uneasy relationship with the military and Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, the powerful spy agency, whom he accused of assassinating his wife last December.
An effort to control the agency and impress the Bush administration failed in late July. Zardari and a senior official at the Interior Ministry, Rehman Malik, directed the prime minister's department to issue a public notification that the agency would report to the Interior Ministry; the military swiftly ordered the prime minister to retract the notice.
Washington has charged that the spy agency is involved in sabotaging American interests by supporting the Taliban in the tribal region.
"His first attempt to get control of the army and ISI was a total failure that showed a naivete about how the army and the ISI work," said Bruce Riedel, a former member of the National Security Council in the Clinton administration who is now advising the campaign of Senator Barack Obama on Pakistan.
Although Zardari will chair the body that has command and control over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, in reality, the military has the day-to-day management of the weapons.
In the five months at the head of the governing coalition that collapsed after pushing Musharraf from power, Zardari filled key posts in the government with people he knew from jail and from his time in exile. He refused to reinstate the chief justice of the Supreme Court, who was removed by Musharraf. His opponents say he feared the chief justice might have reversed an amnesty that allowed Zardari's corruption cases to be dropped.
Zardari was in jail from 1990 to 1993 after Bhutto's first term and from 1996 to 2004 after her second term. He has always maintained that the corruption charges, and a murder charge, were politically motivated by forces trying to minimize his influence, and that he refused offers for early release from prison.
In Britain, Zardari faced a civil case brought by the Pakistani government in connection with a country manor in southern England. The government argued that Zardari paid for the property with ill-gotten gains. In order to win a delay in the British courts, Zardari filed affidavits in early 2006 from two doctors in New York saying he was mentally unable to assist his lawyers.
According to the affidavits, first reported by The Financial Times, Zardari, who was living at the time at an elegant apartment building in Manhattan, and who friends said appeared to be in good spirits, suffered from dementia, major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.
The Pakistani high commissioner in London, Wajid Shamsul Hasan, who was recently appointed to the post by Zardari and is an old friend, said Zardari is now fit and well.
After the vote Saturday, he will live in the presidential palace, a white marble edifice in the center of the capital. There, behind the tall colonnades and long corridors, according to a close associate, he will have achieved three things he most covets.
As president he will have, according to the Constitution, immunity from prosecution. He will enjoy top security. And he will be provided with the rites of protocol that will allow him to appear on the world stage as a leader in his own right, and not just as the spouse of one.
A.Rahman
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
- Messages
- 4,727
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Indians eliminated feudal system after its creation, while we didn't. They exist to this day, ie no one can run for election from Larkana except bhutto family.
Its all easy to live in a Ideal world and talk, people do want a change, If some decent person stands, the Feudal goons visit his house and threaten his family, If he becomes a nominee then he is usually assinated.
you tell me, with condition like this who would stand up and save Pakistan?
third eye
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 18,519
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
Without commenting on Pak specfic issues raised by you, all I'd like to highlight is that the Army of any nation is an important arm of any Govt. Its use in internal matters ( other than national calamities ) is something no Govt like to do unless compelled & only when all other avenues either do not work or are in effective. I may add no army likes to be involved in such situations either, it takes a fair amount of leadership skills on part of the Officer Corps to lead & motivate their commands to execute such tasks within their own borders.
In the case of Pak , since this sort of thing is happening for possibly the 1st time in the long drawn organised manner as seen now, it is natural to feel this way.
However, how so ever distasteful as it may seem some things just have to be done for the larger interests of the nation.
Task Force Black
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 79
- Reaction score
- 0
I regret the need to pursue Taliban militants a few kilometres over the border, and can appreciate your national fervour when you bring the issue of Pakistanis Sovereignty into play.
We should not at this stage push forward the additional phases that see national sovereignty tactically revoked in order to engage in the broader conflict that see's the Taliban militancy cut out at the root. Pakistani cooperation at all levels remains vital to the mission, and to Pakistanis national and international interests, their stability and national security.
I can appreciate that War has been made on you, and War has been made on your neighbours, but it has taken a great many years for Pakistan to even be capable of contemplating proscribing the very people who wage war on you every day, the Taliban themselves.
NATO Patience and restraint with it's partner to the East has frankly been exemplary considering the conditions. This situation will however get worse before it gets better, and should there come a time when the world largest and most powerful strategic military alliance backed up fully by the international community be called upon to launch full scale operations, Pakistani citizens everywhere will have either their finest hour in support and cooperation with the fullest extent of the allied nations, or their darkest hour as they turn towards supporting their own most outlawed and criminal of elements.
If NATO left the region tomorrow, would Pakistan & Afghanistan fair any the better? It's difficult to call one way or the other at this juncture, but one thing is absolutely certain, Pakistanis troubles would remain, and likely would even grow. Do not mistake NATO's resolve in these matters though, for as you can appreciate the total combined power that could be brought into play doesn't bear full contemplation. NATO is still on a peace time footing even though it is fighting two high intensity security operations. Let it remain so, and let us all act to contain it with fullest cooperation and support for legitimate government authorities.
Your military & intelligence has pulled of some remarkable tasks, but they have operated with one hand tied behind their backs for all this time. The results of which is that there has been some very difficult and unnecessary times made for your service men and women, ALL our service men and women, by political impotence.
But recall your friends as friends, and wash away your sense of unease over this. This is not a simple marriage of convenience, this is a great opportunity. Operations will scale as operational needs must, and I expect the normal political establishment who are actually part of the overall problem in many cases to make noise and bluster, placing nationalism and pride before common sense.
This op was a simple one in which Taliban attacked over the border, were repelled and were perused, and it was sight based. Earlier comments on lack of 'Radar' do not contemplate the realities or understand the operational parameters in effect in the region.
Task Force Black
We should not at this stage push forward the additional phases that see national sovereignty tactically revoked in order to engage in the broader conflict that see's the Taliban militancy cut out at the root. Pakistani cooperation at all levels remains vital to the mission, and to Pakistanis national and international interests, their stability and national security.
I can appreciate that War has been made on you, and War has been made on your neighbours, but it has taken a great many years for Pakistan to even be capable of contemplating proscribing the very people who wage war on you every day, the Taliban themselves.
NATO Patience and restraint with it's partner to the East has frankly been exemplary considering the conditions. This situation will however get worse before it gets better, and should there come a time when the world largest and most powerful strategic military alliance backed up fully by the international community be called upon to launch full scale operations, Pakistani citizens everywhere will have either their finest hour in support and cooperation with the fullest extent of the allied nations, or their darkest hour as they turn towards supporting their own most outlawed and criminal of elements.
If NATO left the region tomorrow, would Pakistan & Afghanistan fair any the better? It's difficult to call one way or the other at this juncture, but one thing is absolutely certain, Pakistanis troubles would remain, and likely would even grow. Do not mistake NATO's resolve in these matters though, for as you can appreciate the total combined power that could be brought into play doesn't bear full contemplation. NATO is still on a peace time footing even though it is fighting two high intensity security operations. Let it remain so, and let us all act to contain it with fullest cooperation and support for legitimate government authorities.
Your military & intelligence has pulled of some remarkable tasks, but they have operated with one hand tied behind their backs for all this time. The results of which is that there has been some very difficult and unnecessary times made for your service men and women, ALL our service men and women, by political impotence.
But recall your friends as friends, and wash away your sense of unease over this. This is not a simple marriage of convenience, this is a great opportunity. Operations will scale as operational needs must, and I expect the normal political establishment who are actually part of the overall problem in many cases to make noise and bluster, placing nationalism and pride before common sense.
This op was a simple one in which Taliban attacked over the border, were repelled and were perused, and it was sight based. Earlier comments on lack of 'Radar' do not contemplate the realities or understand the operational parameters in effect in the region.
Task Force Black
thorosius
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 353
- Reaction score
- 0
This is only the begining. These incursions are only preparations for a big one. My question is that how come our army didn't notice them comming? Or if they did (which I am sure they did) how come they didn't do anything? Have they become afraid of dying?
This is very common in low level politics in India.
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
politics is sleazy whether low level or high level (which i dont understand - your classification)!
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Pakistani army reserves right to retaliate cross-border attacks
English_Xinhua 2008-09-05
Special report: Pakistani Situation
ISLAMABAD, Sept. 5 (Xinhua) -- Pakistan's army Friday condemned the cross-border attacks in the country's tribal region and said they reserved the right to retaliate such attacks.
"Such attacks would be counter productive and Pakistan reserves the right to appropriately retaliate in future," General Tariq Majid, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC) said in a meeting with German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung.
Franz Josef Jung and Tariq Majid exchanged views on bilateral ties and regional security environment, an army statement said.
A spokesman of Inter-services Public Relations on Wednesday said in the wee hours of Wednesday morning, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops in two helicopters landed at a village near Angoor Adda, South Waziristan Agency and killed seven innocent civilians.
Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi Thursday strongly condemned as "shameful, uncalled for and unprovoked" the attack and said the U.S ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Office for a protest, according to News Network International news agency.
Tariq Majid reiterated that a stable Afghanistan was in the interest of the region as well as Pakistan.
Tariq Majid emphasized that the two sides ought to strengthen their relationship to foster enduring and meaningful partnership.
The German Defense Minister appreciated the pivotal role of Pakistan in fight against terrorism and its invaluable support to coalition forces operating in Afghanistan.
Editor: Bi Mingxin
English_Xinhua 2008-09-05
Special report: Pakistani Situation
ISLAMABAD, Sept. 5 (Xinhua) -- Pakistan's army Friday condemned the cross-border attacks in the country's tribal region and said they reserved the right to retaliate such attacks.
"Such attacks would be counter productive and Pakistan reserves the right to appropriately retaliate in future," General Tariq Majid, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC) said in a meeting with German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung.
Franz Josef Jung and Tariq Majid exchanged views on bilateral ties and regional security environment, an army statement said.
A spokesman of Inter-services Public Relations on Wednesday said in the wee hours of Wednesday morning, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops in two helicopters landed at a village near Angoor Adda, South Waziristan Agency and killed seven innocent civilians.
Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi Thursday strongly condemned as "shameful, uncalled for and unprovoked" the attack and said the U.S ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Office for a protest, according to News Network International news agency.
Tariq Majid reiterated that a stable Afghanistan was in the interest of the region as well as Pakistan.
Tariq Majid emphasized that the two sides ought to strengthen their relationship to foster enduring and meaningful partnership.
The German Defense Minister appreciated the pivotal role of Pakistan in fight against terrorism and its invaluable support to coalition forces operating in Afghanistan.
Editor: Bi Mingxin
shehbazi2001
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2008
- Messages
- 580
- Reaction score
- 0
In your view, nationalism and pride is being placed before common sense.
It is this common sense which makes us angry over the killing of innocent civilians. Killing of women and children does not suit professional soldiers. Why NATO is not able to distinguish civilian from others?? I think a pair of eyes is all that is required to identify women and children......
and what do u think....the Rules of Engagement set with GoP should not be respected??? You must be confident that you can win (rather continue) the war without the support of Pakistan.....
What in your view is the reason that NATO has not been successful in gaining a clear victory in Afghanistan since 2001...????
Taliban dont have air force, they obviously dont have Navy, no gunship helicopter, no regular armored force.....just irregular foot soldiers and still they are out of control..........all the satellites, drones, bombers, fighter jets, gunship helicopters, tanks etc seem not to work effectively against them.
and I think in case of full scale operations against tribal belt......this time again, the leadership and armed forces of Pakistan are in an imbroglio of saying YES or NO............just like "Are you with us???" at the start of Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001.
That time Musharraf said a big YES and according to Gen Hamid Gul, Musharraf crafted a baseless story that Armitage has threatened him of bombing to the stone age. Hamid Gul insists that no such warning was given.
However, for a political govt, it would not be easy to go against the will of public and support a full flegded operation.
BATMAN
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 29,895
- Reaction score
- -28
- Country
- Location
US attack inside Pakistan threatens dangerous new war
By Peter Symonds
5 September 2008
A ground assault by US Special Forces troops on a Pakistani village on Wednesday threatens to expand the escalating Afghanistan war into its neighbour. Pakistan is already confronting a virtual civil war in its tribal border regions as the country’s military, under pressure from Washington, seeks to crush Islamist militias supporting the anti-occupation insurgency inside Afghanistan.
The attack, which left up to 20 civilians dead, marks a definite escalation of US operations inside Pakistan. While US Predator drones and war planes have been used previously to bomb targets, Wednesday’s raid was the first clear case of an assault by American ground troops inside Pakistani territory. The White House and Pentagon have refused to comment on the incident but various unnamed US officials have acknowledged to the media that the raid took place and indicated that there could be more to come.
The attack was unprovoked. US troops landed by helicopter in the village of Jalal Khei in South Waziristan at around 3 a.m. and immediately targetted three houses. The engagement lasted for about 30 minutes and left between 15 and 20 people dead, including women and children.
A US official acknowledged to CNN that there may have been women and children in the immediate vicinity but when the mission began “everyone came out firing from the compound”. Even this flimsy justification for a naked act of aggression is probably a lie. “It was very terrible as all of the residents were killed while asleep,” a villager Din Mohammad told the Pakistan-based International News.
The newspaper provided details of the dead and injured: nine family members of Faujan Wazir, including four women, two children and three men; Faiz Mohammad Wazir, his wife and two other family members; and Nazar Jan and his mother. Two other members of Nazar Jan’s family were seriously wounded.
The US and international media have described the Angoor Adda area around the village as “a known stronghold of the Taliban and Al Qaeda” but offered no evidence to support the claim. A villager, Jabbar Wazir, told the International News: “All of those killed were poor farmers and had nothing to do with the Taliban.”
In comments to the International Herald Tribune, a senior Pakistani official branded the raid a “cowboy action” that had failed to capture or kill any senior Al Qaeda or Taliban leader. “If they had gotten anyone big, they would be bragging about it,” he commented.
The attack has provoked outrage in Pakistan. Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement branding the attack as “a gross violation of Pakistan territory” and summoned US ambassador Anne Patterson to provide an explanation. North West Frontier Province (NWFP) governor Owais Ahmed Ghani declared that “the people expect that the armed forces of Pakistan would rise to defend the sovereignty of the country”. He put the number killed at 20.
Pakistani military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas said the raid was “completely counterproductive” and risked provoking an uprising even among those tribesmen who have previously supported the army’s operations in the border areas.
The International News reported: “Angry villagers later blocked the main road between Pakistan and Afghanistan in Angoor Adda by placing the bodies of their slain tribesmen on the road. They chanted slogans against the US and NATO military authorities for crossing the border without any provocation and killing innocent people.”
The US raid has compounded the political crisis inside Pakistan, where the selection of a new president is due to take place tomorrow. The ruling Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) has been engaged in a delicate balancing act—continuing to support US demands for a crackdown by the Pakistani military along the border with Afghanistan, while trying to defuse widespread anger and fend off accusations that it is a US puppet.
Reaffirming his support for the Bush administration’s bogus “war on terror”, PPP presidential candidate Asif Ali Zardari declared in a column in yesterday’s Washington Post: “We stand with the United States, Britain, Spain and others who have been attacked.” Zardari went on to promise that he would ensure that Pakistani territory would not be used to launch raids on US and NATO forces inside Afghanistan.
However, as PPP spokesman Farhatullah Babar explained, the US attack was politically compromising. “We have been very clear that any action on this side of the border must be taken by Pakistani forces themselves,” he told the Associated Press. “It is very embarrassing for the government. The people will start blaming the government of Pakistan.”
An expanded war
The decision to launch Wednesday’s attack was undoubtedly taken at the top levels of the White House and Pentagon. As the New York Times reported in articles earlier this year, a high-level debate has been taking place in Washington over the use of US Special Forces inside Pakistan as well as the intensification of existing CIA operations, which include Predator missile strikes.
A meeting in early January involved Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen and top national security and intelligence officials advisers. According to the New York Times on January 6, options discussed included “loosening restrictions on the CIA to strike selected targets in Pakistan” and operations involving US Special Operations forces, such as the Navy Seals.
The Times reported on January 27 that then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf rejected proposals put by US Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and CIA Director Michael Hayden for an expanded American combat presence in Pakistan, either through covert CIA missions or joint operations with Pakistani security forces. While apparently accepting the refusal, the US intensified pressure on Pakistan to bring its border areas under control.
As the anti-occupation insurgency has expanded in Afghanistan, claiming a growing number of US and NATO casualties, Pakistan has become a convenient scapegoat. Washington has repeatedly accused the Pakistani military of failing to suppress Islamist militia and alleged that Pakistani military intelligence is actively supporting anti-US guerrillas inside Afghanistan.
Admiral Mullen has held five meetings since February with his Pakistani counterpart, army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, to press for tougher action. The most recent took place last weekend aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, stationed in the Arabian Sea. In comments to CNN, a US official “declined to say” whether there were any new agreements for US troops to operate inside Pakistani airspace or on the ground to attack Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Whether the Pakistani military quietly approved Wednesday’s attack or not, the Bush administration is making clear that it intends to extend the war into Pakistan. Citing top American officials, the New York Times reported on Wednesday that the raid “could be the opening salvo in a much broader campaign by Special Operations forces against the Taliban and Al Qaeda inside Pakistan, a secret plan that Defence Secretary Robert Gates has been advocating for months within President George W. Bush’s war council”.
This utterly reckless policy, which risks the eruption of a US war against Pakistan, is bipartisan in character. In fact, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has repeatedly declared his support for broadening the “war on terror” through unilateral US attacks on insurgents based inside Pakistan. His candidacy has been strongly backed by sections of the US establishment that have been critical of the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq for undermining US interests. Far from opposing aggressive US military action, Obama has become the political vehicle for shifting its focus to Afghanistan and Pakistan as the means of advancing US strategic interests in Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent.
The US attack on the village of Jalal Khei is another demonstration that the shift in policy, with all its potentially catastrophic consequences, is already underway.
By Peter Symonds
5 September 2008
A ground assault by US Special Forces troops on a Pakistani village on Wednesday threatens to expand the escalating Afghanistan war into its neighbour. Pakistan is already confronting a virtual civil war in its tribal border regions as the country’s military, under pressure from Washington, seeks to crush Islamist militias supporting the anti-occupation insurgency inside Afghanistan.
The attack, which left up to 20 civilians dead, marks a definite escalation of US operations inside Pakistan. While US Predator drones and war planes have been used previously to bomb targets, Wednesday’s raid was the first clear case of an assault by American ground troops inside Pakistani territory. The White House and Pentagon have refused to comment on the incident but various unnamed US officials have acknowledged to the media that the raid took place and indicated that there could be more to come.
The attack was unprovoked. US troops landed by helicopter in the village of Jalal Khei in South Waziristan at around 3 a.m. and immediately targetted three houses. The engagement lasted for about 30 minutes and left between 15 and 20 people dead, including women and children.
A US official acknowledged to CNN that there may have been women and children in the immediate vicinity but when the mission began “everyone came out firing from the compound”. Even this flimsy justification for a naked act of aggression is probably a lie. “It was very terrible as all of the residents were killed while asleep,” a villager Din Mohammad told the Pakistan-based International News.
The newspaper provided details of the dead and injured: nine family members of Faujan Wazir, including four women, two children and three men; Faiz Mohammad Wazir, his wife and two other family members; and Nazar Jan and his mother. Two other members of Nazar Jan’s family were seriously wounded.
The US and international media have described the Angoor Adda area around the village as “a known stronghold of the Taliban and Al Qaeda” but offered no evidence to support the claim. A villager, Jabbar Wazir, told the International News: “All of those killed were poor farmers and had nothing to do with the Taliban.”
In comments to the International Herald Tribune, a senior Pakistani official branded the raid a “cowboy action” that had failed to capture or kill any senior Al Qaeda or Taliban leader. “If they had gotten anyone big, they would be bragging about it,” he commented.
The attack has provoked outrage in Pakistan. Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement branding the attack as “a gross violation of Pakistan territory” and summoned US ambassador Anne Patterson to provide an explanation. North West Frontier Province (NWFP) governor Owais Ahmed Ghani declared that “the people expect that the armed forces of Pakistan would rise to defend the sovereignty of the country”. He put the number killed at 20.
Pakistani military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas said the raid was “completely counterproductive” and risked provoking an uprising even among those tribesmen who have previously supported the army’s operations in the border areas.
The International News reported: “Angry villagers later blocked the main road between Pakistan and Afghanistan in Angoor Adda by placing the bodies of their slain tribesmen on the road. They chanted slogans against the US and NATO military authorities for crossing the border without any provocation and killing innocent people.”
The US raid has compounded the political crisis inside Pakistan, where the selection of a new president is due to take place tomorrow. The ruling Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) has been engaged in a delicate balancing act—continuing to support US demands for a crackdown by the Pakistani military along the border with Afghanistan, while trying to defuse widespread anger and fend off accusations that it is a US puppet.
Reaffirming his support for the Bush administration’s bogus “war on terror”, PPP presidential candidate Asif Ali Zardari declared in a column in yesterday’s Washington Post: “We stand with the United States, Britain, Spain and others who have been attacked.” Zardari went on to promise that he would ensure that Pakistani territory would not be used to launch raids on US and NATO forces inside Afghanistan.
However, as PPP spokesman Farhatullah Babar explained, the US attack was politically compromising. “We have been very clear that any action on this side of the border must be taken by Pakistani forces themselves,” he told the Associated Press. “It is very embarrassing for the government. The people will start blaming the government of Pakistan.”
An expanded war
The decision to launch Wednesday’s attack was undoubtedly taken at the top levels of the White House and Pentagon. As the New York Times reported in articles earlier this year, a high-level debate has been taking place in Washington over the use of US Special Forces inside Pakistan as well as the intensification of existing CIA operations, which include Predator missile strikes.
A meeting in early January involved Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen and top national security and intelligence officials advisers. According to the New York Times on January 6, options discussed included “loosening restrictions on the CIA to strike selected targets in Pakistan” and operations involving US Special Operations forces, such as the Navy Seals.
The Times reported on January 27 that then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf rejected proposals put by US Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and CIA Director Michael Hayden for an expanded American combat presence in Pakistan, either through covert CIA missions or joint operations with Pakistani security forces. While apparently accepting the refusal, the US intensified pressure on Pakistan to bring its border areas under control.
As the anti-occupation insurgency has expanded in Afghanistan, claiming a growing number of US and NATO casualties, Pakistan has become a convenient scapegoat. Washington has repeatedly accused the Pakistani military of failing to suppress Islamist militia and alleged that Pakistani military intelligence is actively supporting anti-US guerrillas inside Afghanistan.
Admiral Mullen has held five meetings since February with his Pakistani counterpart, army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, to press for tougher action. The most recent took place last weekend aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, stationed in the Arabian Sea. In comments to CNN, a US official “declined to say” whether there were any new agreements for US troops to operate inside Pakistani airspace or on the ground to attack Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Whether the Pakistani military quietly approved Wednesday’s attack or not, the Bush administration is making clear that it intends to extend the war into Pakistan. Citing top American officials, the New York Times reported on Wednesday that the raid “could be the opening salvo in a much broader campaign by Special Operations forces against the Taliban and Al Qaeda inside Pakistan, a secret plan that Defence Secretary Robert Gates has been advocating for months within President George W. Bush’s war council”.
This utterly reckless policy, which risks the eruption of a US war against Pakistan, is bipartisan in character. In fact, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has repeatedly declared his support for broadening the “war on terror” through unilateral US attacks on insurgents based inside Pakistan. His candidacy has been strongly backed by sections of the US establishment that have been critical of the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq for undermining US interests. Far from opposing aggressive US military action, Obama has become the political vehicle for shifting its focus to Afghanistan and Pakistan as the means of advancing US strategic interests in Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent.
The US attack on the village of Jalal Khei is another demonstration that the shift in policy, with all its potentially catastrophic consequences, is already underway.
Similar threads
