What's new

Clinton lectures Pakistan, Pakistanis lecture Clinton

Mr. Khan, sorry if my post hurt you. It was not personal, so please do not take this personally.

Comments from people like you does not make even a dent, getting hurt is long way to be achieved. U showed that you are the best about Pakistani affairs so i asked you to provide facts and figures.

Well without US aid, without US fighters, without US military equipments and without their intelligence they day is not far when whole of Pakistan would be taken over by Terrorists. Isn't this what those terrorists want? Pakistan's economy is struggling hard now. There will be no backbone left for the economy to even stand if terrorists take over.

have you the break up of the US aid and how its is helping us ?? How much US aid does in reality reaches to be used in something useful ?? any idea how much US aid goes back and is wasted by the US guys themselves ?? or what is covered in US aid ?? Also plz tell us how much US origin aircrafts do we have ?? how much percentage does it make up of the fighting force of PAF ?? Also plzz tell us how much US military equipment do we have and what percentage does it make of PA ?? I asked you that we were under sanctions and embargo for over a decade, did we came to a collapse or did we became Zimbabwe ?? Do you seriously think a few thousand militants & their supporters can take over a nation of 170Million ??

Before US came into the picture and a couple of decades back, you did have a decent system. The reason was because Pakistan was not into the Business of sponsoring terrorism. It started only when you started to give birth and aid terrorists groups like LeT, Hizb etc. And this is a known fact the world over. Didn't PM Brown of UK say, that of all the terrorists planning attacks in Britain, most of them have their roots in Pakistan (or do you want me to go into archives and post a link for this too?). Also, intellectuality is not needed to understand things we say with our eyes daily. Common sense is so rare these days!!!

Did PM Brown also tell you that the terrorists activities so far done in London or the people captured by them, were Pakistani origin but have been born and lived their lives in UK ?? Making them UK nationals, not Pakistani Nationals, so if he or his country can't control the people brought up in their own country, having UK nationality and passports, and these guys getting brainwashed in UK itself under the nose of MI5 & MI6 & Scotland, why the hell is he getting Pakistan into it, when he can't control his own backyard. We had not sponsored terrorism dear, its terrorism in your perspective or in western perspective. Strange thing is, that when a country wants to support some organization fighting for some cause in another country, they call them freedom fighters or revolutionaries etc etc, but when it is not conforming to their agenda they get labeled as terrorists or militants. Same US used to call the Afghans as Mujaheddin in soviet war, even so that this word in its present form made into English dictionaries too, but now when they are fighting the same US for their freedom from an oppressor they get labeled as militants or terrorists. That's ironic.

Those who use common sense rant and whine in the way as you and others post BS. These who use intellectuality post things from different perspectives, take a deep look into things and understand the issue on hand and take a balanced approach. Seeing, analyzing & understanding both sides of the picture does not requires common sense, it requires intellectuality.
 
Americans are pissed that Pakistanis have started to reject their aid :D The lender always wants to keep the borrower addicted to its aid...

The Pakistani cabinet formally accepted the KLB... who is rejecting the aid... did you mean the common people? when did they last accept it?

Pakistani politics needs to free itself from the AAA (Allah, Army and America) altogether. Each A's proponents are busy trying to win over the other. These lectures are meaningless since the baseline from where the Pakistanis begin to view each of these As is that they want to grab more power within Pakistan. That is the established baseline.


Ditto :tup:
 
As far as AAA is concerned it means Assertive Athiest Admiration to the liberal fascist mind.

Pakistan will take the aid while grilling MRS Hill Billy at the same time.
Sound like a good Bargaining technique employed successfully by all Pakistani leaders like ZIA MUSHARRAF and ZARDARI to name a few.

Attila the Hun (Mullah) is about to take over so USA must pay in time.
 
Well, I don't understand that if Pakistanis are so unhappy with the USA and its aid, why don't they just reject the aid and kick all the Americans out..and take care of themselves..

Its very easy to blame others for your problem...very human indeed..but it does not lead to any where...
 
The Pakistani cabinet formally accepted the KLB... who is rejecting the aid... did you mean the common people? when did they last accept it?
It is THEIR bribe money. Why would they reject it :D
 
Substitute Pakistan and Pakistanis in place of Clinton and the US and you have Pakistani views of the US. Arrogance amongst Americans is not limited to -

There are two vital concepts one has to accept before we can go further:

1) Some people are better than others. One must accept that it is possible to gather enough information to determine, say, that the convicted serial killer is not as good a person as the doctor who delivers children in to the world. If that is so, there is no reason why there aren't a lot of gradations beyond and between.

2) Different groups of people are better than others. We accept this in real life for the same reason we accept that the people we collect in prisons are not as good as the people allowed to remain outside. If that is so, then there isn't any reason why groups of groups of differing characteristics can't be made as well.

These two concepts must be accepted or the rest will not come. Do you accept them, AM?
 
There are two vital concepts one has to accept before we can go further:

1) Some people are better than others. One must accept that it is possible to gather enough information to determine, say, that the convicted serial killer is not as good a person as the doctor who delivers children in to the world. If that is so, there is no reason why there aren't a lot of gradations beyond and between.

2) Different groups of people are better than others. We accept this in real life for the same reason we accept that the people we collect in prisons are not as good as the people allowed to remain outside. If that is so, then there isn't any reason why groups of groups of differing characteristics can't be made as well.

These two concepts must be accepted or the rest will not come. Do you accept them, AM?

Try explaining this to Zionist Fascist and Evangelist Fascist first.
 
Clinton in Pakistan encounters widespread distrust of U.S.

The discontent is not just from radicals, even college students and respected journalists question Washington's intentions in Pakistan. Some liken U.S. drone missile strikes to terrorism.

November 1, 2009

Reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan - Every time Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton tried to win over Pakistanis during her three-day charm offensive last week, they fired back a polite but firm message:

We don't really trust your country.

No matter how hard Clinton tried to reassure audiences in Lahore and Islamabad with talk of providing economic aid where it's needed most, Pakistanis seized on her visit as the perfect moment to lash out at a U.S. government they perceive as arrogant, domineering and insensitive to their plight.

At a televised town hall meeting in Islamabad, the capital, on Friday, a woman in a mostly female audience characterized U.S. drone missile strikes on suspected terrorist targets in northwestern Pakistan as de facto acts of terrorism. A day earlier in Lahore, a college student asked Clinton why every student who visits the U.S. is viewed as a terrorist.

The opinions Clinton heard weren't the strident voices of radical clerics or politicians with anti-U.S. agendas. Some of the most biting criticisms came from well-mannered university students and respected, seasoned journalists, a reflection of the breadth of dissatisfaction Pakistanis have with U.S. policy toward their country.

In those voices what rang clear was a sense that Pakistan was paying a heavy price for America's "war on terror."

"You had one 9/11, and we are having daily 9/11s in Pakistan," Asma Shirazi, a journalist with Geo TV, told Clinton during the Islamabad town hall meeting.

Clinton's visit came at a time when Pakistanis' suspicions about U.S. intentions in their country are at an all-time high.

A five-year, $7.5-billion aid package to Pakistan recently signed into law by President Obama has stoked much of the animosity. Measures in the legislation aimed at ensuring the money isn't misspent have been perceived by Pakistanis as levers that Washington can use to exert control over their country.

Pakistanis also continue to be incensed by U.S. reliance on drone missile strikes to take out top Al Qaeda and Taliban commanders in Pakistan's lawless tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan.

The CIA-operated drone strikes have killed at least 13 senior Al Qaeda and Taliban militants in the tribal areas in the last 18 months. But Pakistani government and military leaders say the strikes have also killed hundreds of civilians and amount to violations of Pakistan's sovereignty.

At the Islamabad town hall meeting, a student from a university in Peshawar, a city shaken by a car bomb blast Wednesday that killed 118 people, summed up the anger over the drone attacks.

"What is actually terrorism in U.S. eyes?" the woman asked. "Is it the killing of innocent people in, let's say, drone attacks? Or is it the killing of innocent people in different parts of Pakistan, like the bomb blast in Peshawar two days ago? Which one is terrorism, do you think?"

Pressed by the forum's moderator whether she thought U.S. drone missile strikes were tantamount to terrorism, Clinton answered, "No, I do not."

On the one occasion when Clinton struck her own assertive tone, the message appeared to get through. Her suggestion to Pakistani journalists in Lahore that elements within the Pakistani government were probably aware of the whereabouts of Al Qaeda leaders but were not acting on the information struck a chord on the opinion pages of major Pakistani newspapers.

"If we are honest, we cannot deny that much of what she said was true," remarked the English-language daily the News in an editorial that appeared Saturday.

Clinton repeatedly acknowledged the mutual lack of trust that has held back the relationship, and she emphasized the Obama administration's commitment to addressing crucial issues for Pakistanis that reach beyond terrorism, such as shoring up Pakistan's beleaguered electricity grid and improving schools and healthcare.

Pakistanis, however, clearly remained unconvinced that Washington was as interested in improving the quality of life in Pakistan as it was in tracking down terrorists. And on several occasions during her trip, Clinton was confronted by Pakistanis who blamed the previous U.S. administration's policies in Afghanistan for the militancy now wreaking havoc across Pakistan.

"Look, Madam Secretary, we are fighting a war that is imposed on us," journalist Shirazi told Clinton. "It's not our war. That was your war, and we are fighting that war."

Assessments of Clinton's trip in Saturday's Pakistani newspapers were gloomy.

"One cannot help feeling that [Clinton's trip] was an abortive exercise," remarked an editorial in the Nation, another English-language newspaper, "and she went away fully conscious of that failure."
 
As for Ms. Clinton or any major US official, whenever they come to Pakistan, they have something stupid remarks waiting to spill, contrary to the reality. Some i believe get so much drunk the previous night that the next day they have no idea what they are gonna say. Or they get so much screwed up in their traveling or visits or load of work that they can't track their trail of statements They say something in Afghanistan & India & after coming to Pakistan, their statements take another turn. Simple idiots. Do remember how & what Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld used to mumble.

Anyhow, Ms.Clinton did get quiet a surprise by facing a very hostile audience, and she is going with a very clear mind that the Pakistani nation does not look up to US as a friend not even a little bit.

America has the tendency to blame others for its own failures.

Well i believe i was quiet up to the mark in my above. Here we go again Ms. Clinton with your once again mumo jumbo talk.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

US allowed Al Qaeda to enter Fata: Hillary
By Anwar Iqbal
Wednesday, 04 Nov, 2009

WASHINGTON: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has conceded that the United States was also responsible for allowing Al Qaeda to enter Pakistan.

Clearly, Al Qaeda left Afghanistan. And we let them out, she told Greta Van Susteren of FOX News. You know, we should have taken them out when we had the chance back in 2001 and 2002 and they escaped. And they escaped into Pakistan.

Asked if the US was also responsible for Al Qaeda’s presence in Fata, Secretary Clinton acknowledged that if the US had done a better job in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda would not have slipped into Pakistan.

If we had done a better job going into Afghanistan and capture the people who had attacked us or killed them you know, we would be in a different position,’ she said.

Asked about the extent to which the developing US military strategy in Afghanistan bleeds into Pakistan, Mrs Clinton said: Absolutely. I mean when we first did our review upon taking office, we concluded that you had to look at Afghanistan and Pakistan together and in light of the war on terror that we had to wage.

To win the war against terrorists, she said, the US needed to build strong partnerships with both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The stronger partnership we have with Pakistan, the stronger their efforts to root out terrorists in their own country, the better the situation is across the border in Afghanistan.

The top US diplomat said she was impressed with the way the Pakistani military was confronting militants in South Waziristan.

We’re very impressed by the campaign against the Pakistan Taliban in (the Swat valley) and South Waziristan. But our point to our friends in Pakistan is that — that is an important and necessary step for you to take, but remember that there is a terrorist syndicate with Al Qaeda at the head.

She warned: You can’t just say your job is done because you’ve cleared out (Swat), you’ve cleared out South Waziristan, until we truly root out what is in my view the source of the syndicate and a lot of the problems that Pakistan, Afghanistan and the rest of us face.

Asked to comment on her statement in Lahore in which she blamed Pakistan for not doing enough to fight Al Qaeda, Mrs Clinton said it was part of her effort to build a better relationship with the country. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

They said to me very clearly: Look, we have a trust deficit for you. And I said, well, look, that’s a two-way street. And I’m happy to take any of your questions. I’m happy to admit where we may not have always done as well as we could have in our relationship.


But a lot of people back home want to know, you know, how come Al Qaeda has a safe haven in Pakistan? How come we arrest somebody like Zazi and find out that he was trained in a training camp run by Al Qaeda in Pakistan?

She added: I think that’s the kind of relationship we need to have.

The United States, she said, was trying to rebuild a better relationship, removing this deep level of mistrust and suspicion about America’s intentions and actions that has built up over the last eight years.

Mrs Clinton said she came to Pakistan with the determination not to meet government officials alone but get to out into different settings, universities and business groups, and really listen to people.

Mrs Clinton said that while she acknowledges that the US should have done a better job in preventing Al Qaeda from entering Pakistan, Islamabad should also accept its responsibility.

There are home-grown terrorists here in Pakistan. They’ve made common cause with Al Qaeda. So we can look backwards through the rearview mirror and say we shoulda, coulda, woulda, and you shoulda, coulda, woulda, too, she said. :confused::what:

The other way of approaching this problem, she said, was to admit that both countries had a common enemy.

And we’re proud that you’re going to after the Pakistan Taliban, who are causing so much damage and destruction, that terrible bombing in Peshawar the other day. But that’s not enough. You have to help us get Al Qaeda. You will be more secure if you help us get the people who are helping to fund and train and equip the very people you’re going after in South Waziristan right now. :what::confused: (She really needs to read the UN drug related reports on how the drugs being manufactured under the US nose in Afghanistan is helping the Taliban to get equipment, also she needs to read how the US aid money goes to these Taliban as bribes and as protection money which is then used to get weapons by the Taliban, are US officials so much dumb nowadays? Can't any US State Dept official give her something to read before she talks? Taliban getting millions & millions from within Afghanistan even US aid money, why do they need AQ for which is already getting their arses kicked by US drones or getting caught up by Pakistani LEA)

Mrs Clinton said she had lot of discussions with the Pakistanis over the Kerry-Lugar bill during his visit.

This really became a very big issue here in Pakistan, and I don’t think most of us in America really understood what the beef is. (Anything else that we don't know about the Intellectuality of US officials? They can't understand the beef of any other country, except for their owns, which I also doubt they can)

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect...-allowed-al-qaeda-to-enter-fata-hillary-hs-06
 
Pakistani response very positive: Clinton

Friday, 06 Nov, 2009

‘The whole purpose of my trip was to try to clear the air with the Pakistani people and government, to reassert our support.’

WASHINGTON: Describing the response to her candid engagement with the Pakistani civil society as ‘overwhelmingly positive,’ Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the US is building a strong base for ties between the two nations.

She also made a subtle contrast of her frank discussions on mutual security concerns in Pakistan with the one-sided tone of the former US Administration, that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 terrorist attacks sought to pursue relations on ‘with us or against us’ basis.

‘The reaction that I got in Pakistan was overwhelmingly positive and I’ve been reading a lot of the blogging and the reaction on the press… in part because they’re not used to anyone from the United States Government coming and opening herself to their concerns,’ Clinton told National Public Radio while travelling in Cairo.

‘They (the Pakistanis)’re just used to saying… to having somebody say, take it or leave it, with us or against us, go forward or not. And so I think we’re building a stronger base for our relationship,’ she noted, recounting her talks in Pakistan, the first stop of her nine-day trip to the broader Middle Eastern region.

Hillary Clinton also argued that her remarks on Pakistan’s failure to know al-Qaeda leaders whereabouts were not meant to cast a doubt on the Pakistani government’s anti-terror commitment but were part of an open conversation she was trying to have with the Pakistani people about each other’s concerns.

‘No, not at all, no. I mean, as you saw, the whole purpose of my trip was to try to clear the air with the Pakistani people and government, to reassert our support for Pakistan, particularly in this very difficult conflict they’re engaged in with the Taliban, and to listen and absorb all the criticisms they have.’

‘They had this sort of pent-up frustration with the United States. And as you know and as you saw, I listened and understand and tried to convey understanding of all of their questions about our policy, going back years.

‘But at the same time, I wanted to stress that we’re looking for a partnership, and they have to listen to our concerns as well as we listen to their concerns.’

‘I feel strongly that as we move forward in these very complex areas that pose real concerns to our national security, concerns to partners like Pakistan’s security, that it is important to make clear to the people… not just the leaders… that we have to speak openly with each other.’ —

APP
 
It looks like the Pakistani lecture worked for Hillary.
 
Back
Top Bottom