Hillary Clinton put in Hot Seat by Pakistani Media

[The Malik]

Once again how is it in question whether Pakistan is chipping in or not? I think the current situation demonstrates that we are doing more than our fair share and still being criticised.

 

[The Malik]

Exactly my point AM. We are paying the heaviest price yet still being doubted and questioned.

 

[qsaark]

USD 500 million in investment in Afghanistan, thousands of Afghan students on scholarships in Pakistan, thousands of hospital beds and thousands of students worth of schools built in Afghanistan.

Anywhere between $30 billion and $50 billion in economic losses because of the US invasion of Afghanistan, thousands dead in suicide bombings and active combat - look at those economic and aid numbers as a percentage of GDP and how horrific they really are.

What direct cost has the US, or any other NATO nation in Afghanistan, paid for participation in Afghanistan that comes close to Pakistan's?

I am not arguing with you; as far as I am concerned, you are preaching to the choir. But tell me, who is responsible for all that you mentioned above? Why were we not able to say "No, our economy does not allow us to bear this additional burden". Pakistan is not the only country that borders with Afghanistan. Why the affected people could not go to other neighboring countries? Charity starts at home, our charity starts at Afghanistan! Why?

Agno, you know what is our problem? We are not fair with nobody, not even with ourselves and we can never make decisions. Geopolitical realties aside, why we were never able to stop or at least slow down the cross border movement? Why were we not able to mine the border to the best of our ability? Why when the US invaded Afghanistan, we failed to deploy our troops on our side of the border so that no one could cross the border? Was that not the best time to settle the century old Durand Line issue with the help of the US?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I am not arguing with you; as far as I am concerned, you are preaching to the choir. But tell me, who is responsible for all that you mentioned above? Why were we not able to say "No, our economy does not allow us to bear this additional burden". Pakistan is not the only country that borders with Afghanistan. Why the affected people could not go to other neighboring countries? Charity starts at home, our charity starts at Afghanistan! Why?

Ethnic ties with those in Pakistan played a part I am sure, and I do not agree with refusing suffering innocents shelter. Taking in the Afghan refugees was the right thing to do, even it there was an economic cost associated with it.

We are not underdeveloped because of those refugees, the burden was not that great, for that we can only blame our leadership.

As for 'saying no' when the US invasion occurred, IMO the radicalization of FATA, and the subsequent rise of militancy seeking to establish a 'Islamic Pakistan' in their vision would have occurred regardless, for reasons I touched in my earlier response to Elmo, and we would have had to fight them eventually like we are now.

 

[qsaark]

Ethnic ties with those in Pakistan played a part I am sure, and I do not agree with refusing innocents suffering shelter. Taking in the Afghan refugees was the right thing to do, even it there was an economic cost associated with it.

Problem is more than the economic cost associated. The unchecked influx of Afghan refugees have changed the whole social dynamics of Pakistan at least in the areas where they are in greater numbers such as North and North Eastern Balochistan, NWFP, Quetta, Karachi, even in Islamabad. I am not saying that we should have refused them, but we should have asked the other neighboring countries to share the burden with us.

We are not underdeveloped because of those refugees, the burden was not that great, for that we can only blame our leadership.

A lot of businesses went into the hands of these refugees that has caused a lot of social and economical problems in Pakistan. After 1979, there established a strong parallel economy purely running on black money that initially rivaled and has now taken over the actual economy.

As for 'saying no' when the US invasion occurred, IMO the radicalization of FATA, and the subsequent rise of militancy seeking to establish a 'Islamic Pakistan' in their vision would have occurred regardless, for reasons I touched in my earlier response to Elmo, and we would have had to fight them eventually like we are now.

Again, we have seen all these things after the Afghan war. Pakistan was quiet an advancing and developing country before 1979. There were always talks of this ‘Islamic Pakistan’, but the so called political religious parties saw an exponential rise in the party membership as well as money to support their ambitions only after 1979.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Agno, you know what is our problem? We are not fair with nobody, not even with ourselves and we can never make decisions. Geopolitical realties aside, why we were never able to stop or at least slow down the cross border movement? Why were we not able to mine the border to the best of our ability? Why when the US invaded Afghanistan, we failed to deploy our troops on our side of the border so that no one could cross the border? Was that not the best time to settle the century old Durand Line issue with the help of the US?

We did deploy troops, tens of thousands of them, how many did the US deploy? And also remember that the Indian Parliament attacks occurred that December, and subsequently Operation Parakram that at the time was the overriding threat.

And Pakistan did raise the issue of the Durand, the US was not interested in pushing its ally Karzai to move on it, and Karzai was not interested in moving.

And a complete stop to cross-border movement, even with a stop to the historical movement of the Pashtun tribes, is next to impossible given the terrain and our resource constraints.

 

[qsaark]

We did deploy troops, tens of thousands of them, how many did the US deploy? And also remember that the Indian Parliament attacks occurred that December, and subsequently Operation Parakram that at the time was the overriding threat.

And Pakistan did raise the issue of the Durand, the US was not interested in pushing its ally Karzai to move on it, and Karzai was not interested in moving.

And a complete stop to cross-border movement, even with a stop to the historical movement of the Pashtun tribes, is next to impossible given the terrain and our resource constraints.

You are right, but only raising issues were not enough. We had to keep beating on them until we would see some results. Our problem was, we agreed to join the so-called WOT "un-conditionally", and 'tried' to set the 'conditions' only after that. We never negotiated, we only begged; and beggars cant be the choosers. All these issues had to be settled first before giving the open access to the invading NATO/ISAF.

 

[parihaka]

One step at at time, the invasion and occupation and its goals come before all, they are the root of the issues in the region at the moment, so an answer to my question please.

Sure, if that's the thread you want to go down. The reasons for it are precisely the reasons for the Pakistan invasion of the Swat valley and areas of South Waziristan these past few months. Namely the control and elimination of the Taliban, AQ and their supporters. The differences occur where the ISAF remains in place whereas the PA goes in, lays waste and then withdraws.
Rinse and repeat every few years.
I believe S-2 is in away affirming that strategy for the ISAF as well, but across a broader front.

And for clarification, I don't agree with the posters comment about body bags and whatnot, only that without Pakistani cooperation eliminating AQ and assorted groups is not possible.

We know that, which is why we've had such problems over the years with notions such as the 'good' Taliban vs the 'bad' Taliban.
My comments above were attuned to the idea of Pakistan blockading the ISAF, something ABCA wouldn't tolerate for a moment and the detrimental effects on Pakistan would be entirely dependent on how the GoP would want to press such a giddy-headed notion.

This particular 'ace' in the hole isn't such a sharp edged blade as you seem believe it to be.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The reasons for it are ... Namely the control and elimination of the Taliban, AQ and their supporters.

And assuming Pakistan does stop supplies, how does a NATO invasion of Pakistan, or destruction of its military capability, and the subsequent chaos and breakdown of central authority (far greater than what is on display now) not astronomically increase the influence and size of AQ, Taliban and other extremist groups?

If the purpose is to control, minimize and eliminate AQ/Taliban etc. then your suggested path only increases the problem, even taking into account any alleged 'duplicity', by many magnitudes, not decrease it.

Cutting off your nose to spite Pakistan so to speak - though I understand the almost base desire to spite Pakistan.

Hence my point - the US cannot eliminate AQ/Taliban etc without Pakistan's assistance, as a viable state.

 

[gubbi]

USD 500 million in investment in Afghanistan, thousands of Afghan students on scholarships in Pakistan, thousands of hospital beds and thousands of students worth of schools built in Afghanistan.

Anywhere between $30 billion and $50 billion in economic losses because of the US invasion of Afghanistan, thousands dead in suicide bombings and active combat - look at those economic and aid numbers as a percentage of GDP and how horrific they really are.

What direct cost has the US, or any other NATO nation in Afghanistan, paid for participation in Afghanistan that comes close to Pakistan's?

Can you post sources for those aid figures you quoted?
500 million USD in aid to Afghanistan from Pakistan? Seriously are you sure it wasnt only to the Taliban? As for thousands of Afghan students on scholarships, I thought Madrasas offer free education. Again which universities in Pakistan boast of scholarships to Afghan students? So what scholarships are you talking about? Again weren't a majority of these very students used as cannon fodder during the Afghan civil war? Schools built in Afghanistan? Are you sure they were not Madrasas?
Maybe what I posted in above isnt true. But then isn't it ironic that inspite of providing so much aid to Afghanistan, the common Afghan is wary of Pakistani designs? Have you wondered why?

 

[parihaka]

And assuming Pakistan does stop supplies, how does a NATO invasion of Pakistan, or destruction of its military capability, and the subsequent chaos and breakdown of central authority (far greater than what is on display now) not astronomically increase the influence and size of AQ, Taliban and other extremist groups?

If the purpose is to control, minimize and eliminate AQ/Taliban etc. then your suggested path only increases the problem, even taking into account any alleged 'duplicity', by many magnitudes, not decrease it.

Cutting off your nose to spite Pakistan so to speak - though I understand the almost base desire to spite Pakistan.

You understand nothing. Nothing would make me happier than to see Pakistan and Afghanistan peacful and prosperous.
At the moment however, Pakistan protects large numbers of Taliban by it's claims to sovereignty over areas such as Waziristan, the NWFP and Bolichistan when no such sovereignty exists. All this does is prevent the ISAF from pursuing its enemy across all the territories it inhabits, and continues Afghanistans slow and deadly bleed.
The ISAF has bent over backward these last 8 years to respect Pakistans claims, all a blockade would mean is that the combined powers would have carte blanche to prosecute it's enemies wheresover they dwelt, and Pakistan would have declared itself to be one of those enemies.
Enter CVBG's, sub killers, SF operations, air denial and a concentrated bombing campaign and occupation of Pakistan just like Afghanistan.
Again I ask, why the hell would ABCA allow it's armies to be destroyed just to keep Pakistan happy?

As for the growth in size and influence of the extremist groups, what the hell do you think has been happening in the region for the last 8 years?
Not worked out so well for Pakistan that one, has it?

 

[SeaGull]

Point taken. Just thought a ban was a bit harsh. May be a warning would have done. I enjoyed some of his posts. Then may be you guys did give him a warning.

Anyways, I agree. Generalizations lead to prejudice.

You have swallowed the wrong tablet fed to you by our revered A_M. Whatever A_M means.
This is not uncharacterstic of the depth of the waters in which we paddle our boats.

The term 'Jewed' that is in question here does not refer to the people but their attitudes that we see so much in vogue all over the world and is a resultant of foriegn policy initiatives and in the selfish attitudes in dealing with others.

Of course it derives from a people ensconsed in the belief of their own superiority to the exclusion of all other beliefs and faiths that we also know as goyums. In other words, the Jews are'Gods chosen People'.

If we have read our Quran - it clearly takes this notion out of heads of the Jews superiority to all other people as pure baloney. There is no one who is superior, everyone is equal and has to be judged in accordance with his actions per the Furqan or the criterion, laid down.

Christ was Jewish to begin with and he was hounded and persecuted by the Jews - that later resulted in the
Jews own persecution at the hands of Christians in the later day crusades and Inquisitions, in which the Muslims sheltered and protected these same very Jews - who now under the Christian protection persecute and
terrorize the Muslims of today that we see so vividly.

If you have read Rabbi Akiva's wife thoughts to her husband, who lived a millenia before our times, it should make clear what makes this Jewish people tick.

I had expressed my own satisfaction to the War Professor for an enrichment of our English vocabulary thru such additions that convey a world of meaning in a single word.


Here u will find a couple of definition of the word goyim:

Means cattle. How the jews and the Zion master sees all non jews in particular whites. Said with contemption.
Those goyim will send troops to the middle east and fight a war for us or we'll call them anti semites.

1. A Hebrew word used in the Jewish Scriptures (a.k.a. the Old Testament). The word literally means "nations," and is always used within these scriptures to refer to the nations of the world. Significantly, within the Old Testament, Judah (the Jewish nation) itself is called a "goy."
2. In the Old Testament, the Jews were called to be a nation separate from the other nations, which were all Pagan. And so, colloquially, all non-Jewish nations came to be called "goyim" as in "the nations" from which the God of the Old Testament had called upon the Jews to separate themselves.
3. A word used by some Jews to refer to Gentiles (non-Jews). The word can have derogatory connotations, such as the word "black" when used to refer to a persons of African descent. It can be neutral or negative depending on the context and the intent of the speaker.

 

[parihaka]

oi vey

 

[Awesome]

At the moment however, Pakistan protects large numbers of Taliban by it's claims to sovereignty over areas such as Waziristan, the NWFP and Bolichistan when no such sovereignty exists. All this does is prevent the ISAF from pursuing its enemy across all the territories it inhabits, and continues Afghanistans slow and deadly bleed.

We're carrying out the biggest operation that this region has seen since 9/11 in that region. Surely just because our sovereignty is challenged by the Taliban, you don't assume that automatically gives you the right for a Free for all in that region?

The ISAF has bent over backward these last 8 years to respect Pakistans claims, all a blockade would mean is that the combined powers would have carte blanche to prosecute it's enemies wheresover they dwelt, and Pakistan would have declared itself to be one of those enemies.

I find it laughable that the ISAF can even begin to mount a similar offensive as Rah-e-Nijat in the region even if we allowed them to. You and what army?

What happened to Obama's surge? What was it? 8000 more men? for Afghanistan? You need to first control Afghanistan and then lecture us about Waziristan. Your pussyfooting on the Afghanistan surge is costing us the war as well.

Enter CVBG's, sub killers, SF operations, air denial and a concentrated bombing campaign and occupation of Pakistan just like Afghanistan.

By what Army? On whose economy? Don't talk silly. Pakistan's invasion is impossible!

Again I ask, why the hell would ABCA allow it's armies to be destroyed just to keep Pakistan happy?

Why would we destroy our country just to save them? Can't they fight better?

As for the growth in size and influence of the extremist groups, what the hell do you think has been happening in the region for the last 8 years?

Not worked out so well for Pakistan that one, has it?

You guys have been losing Afghanistan recently... We've pushed them out of Swat and are giving them hell on their last stronghold. The only problem is you guys have failed in Afghanistan so even if we clean them up on our side, they'll come back from yours!

It's the other way round! You need to give us access to Afghanistan to do the job you guys are unable to do (that is if we want the headache).

Rah-e-Nijat, loosely translated means "The way to expulsion/removal". They will all be running towards Afghanistan for safe harbor. Let's see you guys stop them from entering in, wasn't that what you blamed us after Tora Bora? The balls in your court now. Lets see how you guys perform.

 

[Seadog1]

'not chipping in' thousands dead but we're not 'chipping in.' OK.

No country is obligated to allow another to use it's territory therefore we are doing the US a favour by allowing them to use it.

Or Pakistan could be considered an partner of the Taliban and Al Quada and a enemy of the USA and suffer the resulting consquences.