Anti-Pakistan propaganda in the US media

[53fd]

Pakistan frees 145 Taliban fighters as negotiations progress

Pakistan appears to be progressing in its efforts to cut yet another peace deal with the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan. Faqir Mohammed, the Movement's commander in Bajaur, who is closely allied with al Qaeda emir Ayman al Zawahiri, told Reuters that the government has already freed 145 Taliban fighters, and said he believes that further deals will be struck in the settled district of Swat and in the tribal agencies of South Waziristan, Mohmand, and Arakzai. Faqir also said that Pakistan and Afghanistan should unite in waging jihad against "foreign occupations by non-Muslims," a thinly veiled reference to NATO in Afghanistan and India in Kashmir. From Reuters:

"Our talks are going in the right direction," Maulvi Faqir Mohammad, the commander of the Pakistani Taliban in the Bajaur tribal agency and the No. 2 commander overall, told Reuters.
"If negotiations succeed and we are able to sign a peace agreement in Bajaur, then the government and the Taliban of other areas such as Swat, Mohmand, Orakzai and South Waziristan tribal region will sign an agreement. Bajaur will be a role model for other areas."

...

"We have no wish to fight against our own armed forces and destroy our own country," he said.

"There has been development in our peace talks, but the government would have to show more flexibility in its stance, and restore the trust of Taliban by releasing their prisoners and stop military operations against them."

Mohammad said Pakistan had released 145 members of the group as a gesture of goodwill, and the militants had pledged a cease-fire. He added that Pakistan and Afghanistan should unite against what he called foreign occupations by non-Muslims.

It is somewhat ironic that the US, which is pushing hard to negotiate with the "Afghan Taliban," is concerned about Pakistan's negotiations. From The Express Tribune:

[White House spokesman] Hayden said that the White House was not in a position to comment on the details of any such talks. "Our overall views on reconciliation are well known as is our view that Pakistan has an important role to play. When it comes to the TTP, we continue to underscore to Pakistan that groups such as the TTP threaten Pakistan and the region," said Hayden.
The White House spokesperson added, "persistent safe-havens continue to allow Al Qaeda, the TTP and others to destabilise Pakistan." Hayden also said that "The Pakistani military has made advances against the TTP, and we would not want to see these gains lost. We also continue to be concerned about militant violence against Pakistani civilians." The White House spokesperson said that they would continue to watch the situation closely.

The US has good reasons to doubt that the Pakistani Taliban will keep its word, however. Past peace deals in North and South Waziristan, Kurram, Khyber, Arakzai, Mohmand, Bajaur, and Swat have all collapsed and only contributed to the growth of both the Taliban and al Qaeda, in Pakistan as well as in Afghanistan.

Without a doubt, a peace agreement between the Pakistani government and the Taliban will lead to an increased level of violence in Afghanistan. The Pakistanis have encouraged the Taliban to fight in Afghanistan in the past, and given the current deteriorating relations between the US and Pakistan, there is no reason to believe Pakistan will not continue to do so.

Astonishingly, despite what has repeatedly happened with Taliban peace deals in Pakistan, many US and NATO officials nonetheless believe that the core of the Afghan Taliban (the Quetta Shura and the Haqqani Network) will be willing to abide by the terms of peace negotiations to be arranged with the West.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2011/12/pakistan_releases_145_taliban.php

I follow up with various Pakistani sources & intelligence/think tanks about the prevailing situation in Pakistan, & have no where come across Pakistan releasing 145 Taliban fighters at all (as a 'gesture of good will' or whatever), for 'talks to prevail' like this article claims. And even if Mehsud did make this claim, the fact that the Long War Journal (LWJ) chooses to believe his statement over the official Pakistani statement just goes to show that as long as propaganda shows Pakistan in a bad light, the LWJ accepts it as a fact written in stone. However, the statements coming out from these commanders that portray the US in a bad light are never even mentioned on the LWJ.

An interesting excerpt I found in this article is this one:

It is somewhat ironic that the US, which is pushing hard to negotiate with the "Afghan Taliban," is concerned about Pakistan's negotiations.

The Pakistani official statements have made it clear there are no 'peace' talks going on with the Taliban, & now even many Taliban leaders have denied that there are any peace deals being negotiated. The fact that the LWJ chooses to publish a commander's statement (that shows Pakistan in a bad light) as undisputed fact, as the headline of their article just goes to show how partial they are towards Pakistan.

 

[Pioneerfirst]

No deal is going on at large scale as American Media is reporting.
Just yesterday a solder was killed in IED attack in Tribal Areas.Taliban have claimed responsibility of killing 3 Rangers in Karachi so Where is that deal?

Reality is that US media people are afraid to come to Pakistan and Afghanistan and most of there input is from media contractors
These media contractors just want to earn money and they show the American what they want and listen from US Army.
Americans think that every Pashtoon with beard,turban and shalwar Kameez is terrorist.This is reality that Pak Army arrests hundreds when they carry out any operation or get attacked and later releases these people.

 

[Safriz]

Thats nothing new..
US media has never anything positive to say about Pakistan....
The only allegedly official US institution who ever says anything positive about Pakistan would be "CENTCOM" on PDF.
Other than that i have never ever heard or seen anything positive being said or shown on US media.....

 

[Chogy]

Thats nothing new..
US media has never anything positive to say about Pakistan....
The only allegedly official US institution who ever says anything positive about Pakistan would be "CENTCOM" on PDF.
Other than that i have never ever heard or seen anything positive being said or shown on US media.....

Then you weren't looking closely enough. After 9-11, when Musharaff pledged support, the public gratitude was enormous.

People who actually read the news understand, but especially after the OBL episode, they are confused as to how "real" the support/alliance really is. People are also very confused, myself among them, as to how Pakistan and the USA couldn't be anything other than strategic allies, at least in the sense that our goals are the same... aren't they?

We both tend to dislike (understatement of the century) people who plant bombs in markets and Mosques and Churches. We both dislike the Taliban, who are all essentially the same regardless of the label - Afghan Taliban, Pakistan Taliban, "Good" Taliban, etc. So it baffles us when we see strong public approval of "Heroic Taliban fighters kill more Americans." etc.

 

[53fd]

We both tend to dislike (understatement of the century) people who plant bombs in markets and Mosques and Churches. We both dislike the Taliban, who are all essentially the same regardless of the label - Afghan Taliban, Pakistan Taliban, "Good" Taliban, etc. So it baffles us when we see strong public approval of "Heroic Taliban fighters kill more Americans." etc.

This is the part you don't get Sir. The Pakistani people dislike the Taliban, but the dislike for the US's role in the region is greater than that, which the American people perceive as the Pakistani people 'approving' the Taliban. And the way the US has behaved with Pakistan justifies these anti-US sentiments to an extent. Having anti-US sentiments does not make someone pro-Taliban. The two are not mutually exclusive. No, the Pakistani people do not approve of the Taliban, there is deep dislike for them & their ways in Pakistan. But the Taliban are the Afghan people themselves, & this is a situation Afghanistan needs to resolve within themselves without the involvement of the US in the region.

About the alleged double game you think Pakistan (& even the Pakistani people) plays, I would like to refer to an interesting excerpt from the OP:

It is somewhat ironic that the US, which is pushing hard to negotiate with the "Afghan Taliban," is concerned about Pakistan's negotiations.

Please think over this sentence a few times, & you'll realize it has a lot more to it than what appears.

 

[W.11]

the day pakistan starts eye balling US it would get 'enormous respect' tht is so some odd reality concenring relationship with the USrael

---------- Post added at 11:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 PM ----------

Thats nothing new..
US media has never anything positive to say about Pakistan....
The only allegedly official US institution who ever says anything positive about Pakistan would be "CENTCOM" on PDF.
Other than that i have never ever heard or seen anything positive being said or shown on US media.....

VCheng is one example of the product of US media over americans

 

[53fd]

Then you weren't looking closely enough. After 9-11, when Musharaff pledged support, the public gratitude was enormous.

People who actually read the news understand, but especially after the OBL episode, they are confused as to how "real" the support/alliance really is. People are also very confused, myself among them, as to how Pakistan and the USA couldn't be anything other than strategic allies, at least in the sense that our goals are the same... aren't they?

We both tend to dislike (understatement of the century) people who plant bombs in markets and Mosques and Churches. We both dislike the Taliban, who are all essentially the same regardless of the label - Afghan Taliban, Pakistan Taliban, "Good" Taliban, etc. So it baffles us when we see strong public approval of "Heroic Taliban fighters kill more Americans." etc.

Also Sir, I forgot to add that Pakistan does not need the US tell it what to do inside Pakistan. The TTP which has been responsible for the most of the terrorism is hated by every Pakistani, but they are our own citizens, & we know how to handle them the best. If they do not give up their arms & cease their violence, they will be eradicated by military force, no two ways about it.

 

[Chogy]

First Chorgy you harbour an islmaphobe veiw of the world including many Polictains and media.
Great example is 9/11 - The Taliban did not attack th US it was Bin LArden so the hell were the entire Afgan people including the TAliban are carpet bombed to death.

This is not even worthy of addressing. You have made it abundantly clear in the past that you think I am some raving islamophobe, and there is not a molecule of evidence for this. My thinking is rational. I don't blame Islam for the acts of some lunatics. I blame the lunatics themselves.

As for the Taliban, at least those we smoked in 2002, they were allied with al Quada, supported, them, nurtured them.

Also Sir, I forgot to add that Pakistan does not need the US tell it what to do inside Pakistan.

I personally have never made a statement like "Pakistan isn't doing enough to combat extremism."

Look, I'm not going to be drawn into yet another debate on the origins of the WOT. Am I wrong in saying clear-thinking people don't want Taliban influence in Afghanistan OR Pakistan? If this is true, working together works better than being at each other's throats. That is exactly what THEY want.

 

[53fd]

I personally have never made a statement like "Pakistan isn't doing enough to combat extremism."

Look, I'm not going to be drawn into yet another debate on the origins of the WOT. Am I wrong in saying clear-thinking people don't want Taliban influence in Afghanistan OR Pakistan? If this is true, working together works better than being at each other's throats. That is exactly what THEY want.

Sir, I respectfully disagree with you on everything you just said there. It is the US that has undermined this relationship. The US claims that Pakistan's security is of utmost importance in the region, yet, every action taken by them undermines Pakistan's security. Whether that is violating Pakistan's national sovereignty, drone strikes, cross border terrorism from Afghanistan; all their actions in Afghanistan have destabilized Pakistan. The US says it wants to have a good relationship with Pakistan, yet, they make baseless accusations against the ISI of playing double games. The mistrust (trust deficit) that has a developed in the relationship has been a result of this/the US as well.

 

[Chogy]

Sir, I respectfully disagree with you on everything you just said there. It is the US that has undermined this relationship. The US claims that Pakistan's security is of utmost importance in the region, yet, every action taken by them undermines Pakistan's security. Whether that is violating Pakistan's national sovereignty, drone strikes, cross border terrorism from Afghanistan; all their actions in Afghanistan have destabilized Pakistan. The US says it wants to have a good relationship with Pakistan, yet, they make baseless accusations against the ISI of playing double games. The mistrust (trust deficit) that has a developed in the relationship has been a result of this/the US as well.

I respect your points, and there is validity there. The alliance has certainly been mishandled. But can you say with certainty that such things as the comments from the USA re: the ISI are without merit? Within the rhetoric from both sides are elements of truth blended in with falsehoods.

Do you think that if the bin Laden raid had been communicated to the ISI prior to the date, or the USA had asked Pakistan to go in and get him, would there have been the slightest possibility of bin Laden being tipped off?

I can state with certainty that the CIA has done immoral things, and that elements within the CIA often work outside recognized authority, i.e. they have gone partially rogue. Can you say the same about the ISI? Or can they do no wrong?

How do you think cooperation be restored?

There is no perfect alliance. But together, we are infinitely stronger vs. a common enemy.

 

[53fd]

I respect your points, and there is validity there. The alliance has certainly been mishandled. But can you say with certainty that such things as the comments from the USA re: the ISI are without merit? Within the rhetoric from both sides are elements of truth blended in with falsehoods.

Do you think that if the bin Laden raid had been communicated to the ISI prior to the date, or the USA had asked Pakistan to go in and get him, would there have been the slightest possibility of bin Laden being tipped off?

I can state with certainty that the CIA has done immoral things, and that elements within the CIA often work outside recognized authority, i.e. they have gone partially rogue. Can you say the same about the ISI? Or can they do no wrong?

How do you think cooperation be restored?

There is no perfect alliance. But together, we are infinitely stronger vs. a common enemy.

Sir, the ISI is no angel, I agree with you. It is very similar to the CIA. I certainly think the US & Pakistan can have a very beneficial relationship w.r.t Afghanistan, & collaborate with each other on each other's strengths & weaknesses. Let me quote you a comment I made a few months ago on another thread:

Pakistan does not need 'this' (imbalanced) relationship, but a more 'balanced' relationship with the US. And yes, Pakistan does need that. I would argue that the US needs that as well. Both Pakistan & the US have some mutual interests in the region, such as the US vacating from Afghanistan post 2014, & both Pakistan & the US need each other for that. Pakistan also needs the US to not be a nuisance in the region, so that Pakistan can tackle the terrorist groups in the FATA effectively, having the support of the Pakistani citizens. The US also needs Pakistan to not be a nuisance in the region, so that the US can tackle the terrorist groups in South, Eastern & Northern Afghanistan effectively.

So when do the problems arise? The problem arises when there is mistrust, when accusations are levied (US accusing Pakistan's North Waziristan for being the safe haven for the Haqqani network that threatens Afghanistan, Pakistan accusing the US of not tackling the safe havens in Kunar & Nuristan for the Al-Qaeda & the TTP fighters that threaten the stability of Pakistan), which threaten to disrupt the relationship of the CIA & the ISI, & distract them from achieving their mutual interests.

And another one, which underlines the differences in approach the US & Pakistan have taken:

Another important aspect of the US-Pakistan relationship is that Pakistan is 'hedging its bets' in the WOT. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Pakistan's strategy is to collaborate with the US on the WOT, to get the US out of the region the way the US wants to. The US wants to dismantle the terror networks inside Pakistan's FATA, & Pakistan is collaborating with the US on that. Pakistan wants to assist the US in dismantling the terror networks of the region. However, Pakistan's current strategy is also devised/caters for the scenario in which the US fails to dismantle the terror networks in the region, as Pakistan has to live in the neighborhood post 2014, which the US doesn't. That is what I mean by hedging its bets. Hence, there is nothing wrong with what Pakistan is doing, as it caters for both the scenarios (whether the US succeeds or fails in dismantling the terror networks in the region). The US unfortunately does not have a clear strategy, & the current one is too inflexible & one-dimensional.

Pakistan has made it clear that it is unwilling to do things that will jeopardize the position of the country if the US fails to dismantle the terror networks in the region. However, Pakistan does not want to impediment the US operations in the region either, & is willing to collaborate with the US to dismantle the terror networks in the region (please read my previous posts). Pakistan is just not ready to put all its eggs in one basket, which the US wants Pakistan to do, & some people don't like that about Pakistan.

For me, there is a lack of clarity on the US's side about what they want the end-state in Afghanistan to be. There are "faultlines" (& inconsistencies) in what the civilian & military establishment want from Afghanistan. The thought process in Pakistan, unlike the US is fairly consistent, & flexible.

 

[r3alist]

People who actually read the news understand, but especially after the OBL episode, they are confused as to how "real" the support/alliance really is. People are also very confused, myself among them, as to how Pakistan and the USA couldn't be anything other than strategic allies, at least in the sense that our goals are the same... aren't they?

The American people are uninformed, and so are you.

American LONG TERM interests are totally opposite to Pakistan, because Pakistan is a key part of the anti-china strategy and Pakistan is pro china, how can the us and pak be strategic allies?

I mean what a joke, the us bring India right into Afghanistan and threaten to bomb Pakistan, how can they be allies???

 

[Irfan Baloch]

I respect your points, and there is validity there. The alliance has certainly been mishandled. But can you say with certainty that such things as the comments from the USA re: the ISI are without merit? Within the rhetoric from both sides are elements of truth blended in with falsehoods.

Do you think that if the bin Laden raid had been communicated to the ISI prior to the date, or the USA had asked Pakistan to go in and get him, would there have been the slightest possibility of bin Laden being tipped off?

I can state with certainty that the CIA has done immoral things, and that elements within the CIA often work outside recognized authority, i.e. they have gone partially rogue. Can you say the same about the ISI? Or can they do no wrong?

How do you think cooperation be restored?

There is no perfect alliance. But together, we are infinitely stronger vs. a common enemy.

Sir I agree with you
after the raid I said to myself maybe it was for the better that the raid had the ending which removed OBL piece from the world chessboard.

and indeed there was a chance that he might have been tipped off if we go by the American argument for not informing us. I have talked about that in detail.

now you are a military man and you know that our lower to middle level tier doesn’t remain posted in one place for more than 2 or 3 years and has to be moved on and he has no control where he is posted out.
so to keep that a secret from top brass was impossible when the person being posted and replacing the other one might never know each other. (unless they served in some station together or were course mates).

and if the PA leadership was involved then the "treasure cove" of information didnt suggest that to be the case so all we have is the suspicion. secondly his capture would have vindicated us and that far out weighed any perceived benefit from hiding him.

whats done is done. let the speculation feed our insatiable hunger for controversies.

 

[Jango]

...

now you are a military man and you know that our lower to middle level tier doesn’t remain posted in one place for more than 2 or 3 years and has to be moved on and he has no control where he is posted out.
...

Not only the lower middle tier but also the top tier, like Lt Gen and Maj Gen also get posted.

Now onto the thing of having no control of the posting, the officers of the rank of Lt Col can influence the postings just a little bit, but their wont be any guarantee that it will happen according to their wishes, they can just give their opinion.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

It is not surprising at all.

When i saw the comments made by the US Internet users on Pakistan, i saw nothing except the hatred and the hostility.