Cameron's inflammatory comments against Pakistan: I meant Pakistanis are terrorists..

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Interesting that you agree here AM...if you remember when I said the same thing in the Pakistan nuclear deal thread you went on a long rant about American hypocrisy.

Money and interest are all that matters...morality means squat.

You misquote me - I did not disagree with you that 'money and interests talk', but that does not change the fact that behavior governed by money and interests can be hypocritical, as has been the case numerous times with the US.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

When the question of Military domination is pointed out, you have gone into rants and not me. No straight answer but a procedure that means nothing but letting someone do exactly opposite of what the civil leadership expects to be done.

The question was very specifically one about whether the GoP was involved in the decision to cooperate on the drone attacks. The contention from your side was that it was not involved. I pointed out why that was not the case, to which I received no reply as of yet. You chose to digress into a larger discussion over the extent of control the military exercises over foreign policy.

Military is supposed to be a subservient of the Civil leadership but it has a decision making body at the highest level even play a parallel power center. If you deny this, there is no point in you making an argument but for namesake. This is accepted by several prime ministers in the past given that Pakistan was ruled for 63 years by the military in his short independence years.

I am sure you wont accept it, so

Certainly the military has had enormous influence in decision making in the past, and may continue to do so, but that does not address the argument of why you think the GoP is opposed to the drone attacks and the PakMil is cooperating with NATO behind their backs.

 

[Ras]

You misquote me - I did not disagree with you that 'money and interests talk', but that does not change the fact that behavior governed by money and interests can be hypocritical, as has been the case numerous times with the US.

And others including Pakistan...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And others including Pakistan...

Well we had that discussion, and I don't entirely agree with the analogy you used to compare Pakistan with US double standards on the civilian nuclear cooperation front.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Interesting that you agree here AM...if you remember when I said the same thing in the Pakistan nuclear deal thread you went on a long rant about American hypocrisy.

Money and interest are all that matters...morality means squat.

Allow me to make one more point on that issue that I meant to on the nuclear thread but could not and got sidetracked with other issues.

I do not agree with the position that the US, France or any other nation to offer/negotiate civilian nuclear cooperation with Pakistan (on a bilateral level) merely because India obtained such cooperation.

I do however agree with the Pakistani position that Pakistan should be given an NSG waiver that allows it to obtain civilian nuclear technology, similar to India's.

 

[sparklingway]

Seems the Foreign Office has had a change of heart about the appropriate response and way to handle the situation.

Zardari to visit UK despite Cameron snub

Saturday, July 31, 2010

By Tariq Butt

ISLAMABAD: President Asif Ali Zardari is going ahead with his four-day official visit to Britain, starting from Aug 3, presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar said in categorical terms on Friday.

This belied a widespread speculation that the president might call off his trip to London in view of Pakistan-bashing by British Prime Minister David Cameron during his India visit. Babar told The News that the president’s visit was on and his engagements in Britain would be held as planned.

Asked about the reported cancellation of the visit of the ISI chief Lt Gen Shuja Pasha to Britain, the spokesman said that the general was not accompanying the president in his visit. Pakistan dubbed Prime Minister Cameron’s remarks about its role in the anti-terror war as saddening and surprising.

Babar said Zardari would address a function of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) but there would be no “launching” of Bilawal Bhutto Zardari as the party’s functional chairman. He said that Bilawal became the PPP chairman after the assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto and continues to hold this office.

The spokesman said Zardari would first fly to France on a three-day official visit on Aug 1 for wide-ranging talks with the French leadership on bilateral, regional and global issues. It will be his second engagement with French leaders following his visit to Paris in May last year. The president will exchange views with the French leadership on expanding relations in economic, trade and industry, science and technology and cultural fields.

 

[iPhone]

Don't get judgmental and sound like a bad looser. Let the readers of the posts decide who is getting thrashed.

it's you, guy. who else. You have no idea what your talking about, what are you actually talking about? you're all over the place, not just in this thread but every other. You're nothing but a troll, there shouldn't be any kind of discussion with you and no one should be replying to your posts, least of all in an articulate manner. enough of the stupid cheer emoticon you insert so stupidly in your replies.

 

[iPhone]

Seems the Foreign Office has had a change of heart about the appropriate response and way to handle the situation.

Zardari to visit UK despite Cameron snub

Saturday, July 31, 2010

By Tariq Butt

ISLAMABAD: President Asif Ali Zardari is going ahead with his four-day official visit to Britain, starting from Aug 3, presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar said in categorical terms on Friday.

This belied a widespread speculation that the president might call off his trip to London in view of Pakistan-bashing by British Prime Minister David Cameron during his India visit. Babar told The News that the president’s visit was on and his engagements in Britain would be held as planned.

Asked about the reported cancellation of the visit of the ISI chief Lt Gen Shuja Pasha to Britain, the spokesman said that the general was not accompanying the president in his visit. Pakistan dubbed Prime Minister Cameron’s remarks about its role in the anti-terror war as saddening and surprising.

Babar said Zardari would address a function of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) but there would be no “launching” of Bilawal Bhutto Zardari as the party’s functional chairman. He said that Bilawal became the PPP chairman after the assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto and continues to hold this office.

The spokesman said Zardari would first fly to France on a three-day official visit on Aug 1 for wide-ranging talks with the French leadership on bilateral, regional and global issues. It will be his second engagement with French leaders following his visit to Paris in May last year. The president will exchange views with the French leadership on expanding relations in economic, trade and industry, science and technology and cultural fields.

yeah, heard about that one. Not realy sure what to say but I know my father says that two angy people screaming and acting stupid never solve any thing and I'm not much a fan of empty chest thumping either. I hope Zardari and his team give this matter much thought and came to this decision in the best interest of Pakistan.

 

[sparklingway]

Selling Britain’s soul​

Saturday, July 31, 2010
By Ikram Sehgal

As the youngest man to become PM in British history, and the first Conservative to re-enter Downing Street in nearly 2 decades, David Cameron excited many expectations, not only in the United Kingdom but also around the world. His pragmatic deal with the Liberals to share power in a coalition government to replace that of Labour further gave impetus to optimism that pragmatism ‘a la Blair’ would be the order of the day.

On his first visit to India as PM, Cameron’s avowed purpose was to develop the Indian market for British goods. In order to ingratiate himself with his hosts, Cameron sold himself cheap in opting to be more Indian than the Indians in ‘Pakistan-bashing’. He warned Pakistan against ‘promoting the export of terror’ and being allowed to ‘look both ways’ on the issue. Needless to say, the Indians were besides themselves with undisguised glee, they almost gave Cameron the keys to the Red Fort. Warming up to the gallery he added that no one was in any doubt that terrorist groups operated in Pakistan, and Islamabad needed to make ‘real progress’ to eliminate them. Given that the British are trying to rise beyond being a nation of shopkeepers and in spite of the fact that selling goods across the counter is in their blood, for their PM to sell their souls for a few aircraft and nuclear plants (approx UK Stg 1.1 billion) is not only disappointing, the ‘Blair Clone’ is carrying pragmatism too far.

For the record Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said the British PM’s comments were not only surprising but also shocking, as Pakistan’s achievements and successes against terrorism cannot be negated or belittled. We take serious exception to any suggestion that falsifies facts and tends to put the entire onus of terrorism on Pakistan. This is totally unacceptable. Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit added that David Cameron’s remarks were biased and unrealistic, “These remarks evidently lack objectivity and are contrary to the facts on the ground,” saying that the government was saddened by the statement.

Cameron said he intended to have a ‘candid discussion’ with President Asif Ali Zardari during his upcoming state visit to the UK on Aug 3. “Self-respect should dictate that the President of Pakistan should not stand such nonsense and must cancel his visit to the UK. Are we to believe the rumours that there is definitely pressure on President Zardari to call off the UK trip, but the president is insisting on going ahead with the plan (without specifying where the pressure came from)?” Where will Pakistan’s self-respect as a nation be if Asif Zardari gets a public lecture about Pakistan’s perfidy from Cameron at the door of 10 Downing Street?

While most Pakistanis are besides themselves with rage and regret, to his credit, former British foreign minister and aspirant for leadership of the Labour Party, David Miliband condemned Prime Minister David Cameron outright, correctly accusing him of being a ‘loudmouth’ over his remarks about Pakistan’s record on terrorism. He said that the grandstanding Cameron was ‘telling half the story’, pointing out that thousands of innocent civilians in Pakistan had been killed by terrorism. Put to him that it was ‘pretty strong’ to accuse the prime minister of being a loudmouth. He said, “Well, I think there is a big difference between straight-talking and being a loudmouth,” and added, “It is very, very important that the prime minister, who in three unscripted appearances at press conferences has gone off script and has said, in Pakistan’s case half the story, one must understand that we have got two ears and one mouth and it is very important to use them in that proportion when it came to foreign policy.” Miliband denied he was point-scoring as part of his leadership campaign, “It is very serious situation and that is why I say, as I always did when I went to Islamabad, Pakistan must go further and faster in dealing with the terrorism that has been launched from its own midst. But it is also important to recognize how much Pakistan itself has suffered from the terrorism that afflicts the whole of South Asia. I think it is very important that we speak plainly, but we speak the whole truth. Pakistan has been a launching pad for terrorism but remember we need to work with the Pakistani authorities against the terrorist groups that go across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. We are not going to do that if we just say that they are in league with terrorists.”

My article in Feb 2010, ‘Redefining Davos’, mentioned that former Afghanistan Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani could not avoid the usual snide comment about Pakistan, However British Foreign Minister David Miliband forcefully brushed it aside, acknowledging publicly my suggestion that not enough was being done by Pakistan despite central role. The US, EU, China and other developed countries had to exponentially increase adequate economic and security assistance, swiftly and abundantly. Milliband considered it incongruous that 30000 US soldiers in the ‘military surge’ alone would cost $1 million per soldier i.e. $30 billion per year, whereas Pakistan would get only $1.5 billion economic aid through the Kerry-Lugar Bill ($1.2 billion in additional military support funds for Pakistan in 2010 was announced two days later). Leaders must not only face up to the truths, they must not be shy of stating the truth publicly, even if the truth may not sell many aircraft or nuclear plants. Certainly it is not expected of them to misrepresent facts deliberately. That is the element of character that separates leaders from ordinary run-of-the mill politicians like David Cameron who tend to say whatever endears than to their immediate audience. What a tragedy that David Milliband, odds-on favourite to succeed Gordon Brown as Labour Party Leader, will have to wait his turn at the next elections to become PM.

Entering the fray, Lindsey German, the convener of the anti-war coalition, advised David Cameron to first read the recent evidence given to the Chilcot panel by the former head of MI-5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, she had clearly stated that it was wrong for Afghans and coalition countries to use Pakistan’s intelligence agencies as scapegoats for their own failures.

For their part, Afghan government officials never spare any occasion to tar and feather Pakistan. Hamid Karzai, who had seemed (when he was in deep trouble and about to lose his Presidency) to change his stance towards Pakistan, came out in his true colours to target Pakistan again. This will earn him brownie points with those who hate Pakistan, both in the Afghan Establishment (and in India). While we have to maintain relations with UK wherein any case many disagree with Cameron and have taken him to task, we do not have to tolerate Karzai, or other Afghans like him that never spare any opportunity to defame us. This nonsense has gone far enough, we should stop talking to the Afghan government till they learn to behave themselves. In the meantime, let us immediately turn off the spigot that keeps their economy afloat, the Afghan Transit Trade Agreement. This predator country must learn to fend for themselves as a land-locked country without anything to support their livelihood, agriculture, manufacturing, etc. It is time the Afghans learnt to be grateful!

 

[sparklingway]

yeah, heard about that one. Not realy sure what to say but I know my father says that two angy people screaming and acting stupid never solve any thing and I'm not much a fan of empty chest thumping either. I hope Zardari and his team give this matter much thought and came to this decision in the best interest of Pakistan.

Canceling a state visit is a big decision since the message it sends is quite significant. The decision will be solely that of the Foreign Office, the guys at the Europe Division and the Deputy Director Foreign Affairs at the Aiwan e Sadr. The President will have little input into this decision.

I guess they weighed the options and chose that seeking a positive statement from Cameron would be better than showing him extreme anger only.

 

[iPhone]

Canceling a state visit is a big decision since the message it sends is quite significant. The decision will be solely that of the Foreign Office, the guys at the Europe Division and the Deputy Director Foreign Affairs at the Aiwan e Sadr. The President will have little input into this decision.

I guess they weighed the options and chose that seeking a positive statement from Cameron would be better than showing him extreme anger only.

yeah could be. another thing our foreign office could have done was play a wait-and-evaluate-every-option game with britian's foreign office, sending mix messages that the visit could be cancelled but not entirely sure for a day or two. But I guess they played it for a shorter period of time, but at the end opting for a more diplmatic approach does seem a better and mature option.

 

[Pakistani_Regiment]

Top Pakistan Spy Scrubs U.K. Trip in Protest

JULY 31, 2010

By TOM WRIGHT
NEW DELHI—Pakistan's military spy chief canceled a trip to the U.K. because of Prime Minister David Cameron's remarks about his country's role in sponsoring terrorism, a senior Pakistani intelligence official said.

Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, head of the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, was set to accompany President Asif Ali Zardari on a five-day visit to the U.K. beginning Aug. 5.

Mr. Zardari faces intense domestic pressure to also cancel his trip, but decided to go because of the "bigger issues involved," which include the long-term strategic relationship between the two countries, a senior Pakistani government official said.

A spokesman for the British High Commission in Islamabad, Pakistan's capital, said only that Mr. Zardari's visit was proceeding as scheduled. He denied local media reports that the U.K.'s High Commissioner had been summoned Thursday by Pakistan's government, saying the meeting had been arranged previously.

Mr. Cameron, during a state visit to India, said Wednesday that Pakistan couldn't "look both ways" in receiving billions of dollars in aid from Western nations while continuing to "promote the export of terror, whether to India or Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world."

On Thursday, Mr. Cameron stood by his remarks, despite complaints lodged by Pakistan. Mr. Cameron did note, however, that Pakistan's government is also engaged in a war against Taliban militants.

Questions about Pakistan dominated a joint news conference with Mr. Cameron and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Thursday in New Delhi.

Global pressure on Pakistan to crack down on Islamist militant groups operating from its soil has mounted since the release last weekend by WikiLeaks, a document-publishing Internet site, of thousands of classified U.S. military field reports from Afghanistan.

A handful of those documents detailed alleged links between the ISI, Pakistan's spy agency, and the Taliban in Afghanistan between 2004 and 2009.

Although many U.S. officials have said the intelligence in the documents is likely to be unreliable, politicians in India, the U.S., the U.K. and Afghanistan have seized on their contents to press Pakistan to do more in combating militants.

President Barack Obama, in public remarks this week, played down the documents, saying they didn't contain any new information.

White House officials have stressed that U.S. cooperation with Pakistan, including on intelligence sharing, has improved this year, especially as Pakistan's government and military faces increased attacks from Islamist militants.

Pakistan's government has denied the allegations in the documents published by WikiLeaks. It has also pointed out that its army is fighting a war with Pakistan Taliban extremists, who are allied with the Afghan Taliban, and has lost more than 2,000 soldiers in the past few years.

"One would have hoped that the British prime minister would have considered Pakistan's enormous role in the war on terror and the sacrifices it has made since 9/11," Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Pakistan's High Commissioner to London, wrote in the Guardian, a British newspaper, on Wednesday.

Mr. Hasan said he believed Mr. Cameron had based his comments on the WikiLeak documentation "despite it lacking credibility or corroborating proof."

The ISI has a long history of supporting jihadi groups, from the war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union in the 1980s to the conflict against Indian troops in Kashmir in the 1990s.

Pakistan says it has severed those links, including banning a number of militant groups in 2002 under U.S. pressure and fighting a war against the Pakistan Taliban and its allies over the past two years.

Officials in the U.S., U.K. and India, among other nations, remain skeptical, and the document publications this week have given them ammunition. They believe the ISI has maintained links with various Taliban factions.

The U.S. complains that the Pakistani military hasn't chased after Pakistan-based allies of the Taliban that focus on attacking U.S. interests in Afghanistan, such as the Haqqani network.

Pakistan denies this and says it is too stretched fighting militants in other parts of the tribal regions that border Afghanistan.

India says it has given Pakistan proof of ISI involvement in the attacks on Mumbai by 10 Pakistani gunmen in 2008, which led to the deaths of more than 160 people. Pakistan denies ISI involvement.

India's Home Secretary G.K. Pillai made the claim publicly earlier this month on the eve of peace talks between the foreign ministers of the two nations. Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi later lashed out at Mr. Pillai for the comments at a joint news conference with his counterpart S.M. Krishna after the talks ended in acrimony.

At the news conference Thursday with Mr. Cameron, Mr. Singh said Mr. Qureshi's comments had been unhelpful in pursuing peace between the two nations. Pakistan maintains Mr. Pillai's comments undermined the talks.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703314904575398863504359780.html

 

[IceCold]

Zardari to visit UK despite Cameron snub

Like i said in my previous post, Zadari wont bite the hand that feeds him and his family. So no surprise here. Good luck Mr president with your trip.

 

[karan.1970]

Since I am arguing the GoP is in control of military actions, the question of a variance in the public position of the GoP vs the cooperation on the ground is best addressed to the GoP - the variance in public vs private positions does not automatically indicate the military is acting on its own.

The GoP has good reason for this variance - it is able to gain US economic and military support through privately cooperating, and is able to minimize the domestic political fallout by denying it publicly.

@Agno, if you read back the chain of posts, I am responding to a post that claimed that its the PA that is cooperating in the attacks and not GoP...

Originally Posted by Pakistani_Regiment
I 100% agree with you being stupid.

Drone attacks in Pakistan are launched from Balochistan Province with cooperation/intelligence of Pak Army.

You do know of the resolution which was passed against continuance of drone attacks by Pak parliament....which was tabled by your PM ???

What part of Pak Army did you not understand in my post? The stupidity continues...

 

[karan.1970]

'Public perception' will do squat, as I pointed out before, since G2G relations will continue on 'business as usual', since at a government level it is facts on the ground and not rhetoric for public consumption that drives events.

But dont you think that's how bigger policy changes begin..with the changing perception of the population.. Thats how India withdrew from Sri Lanka or USA from Vietnam or for that matter Musharraf from Pakistan...