Kiyani Demands US Limit Drone Attacks and Operations

[53fd]

If you had bothered to check the link, you'd see it's a re-print of an article from the Daily Times.

There are plenty of conspiracy theorists in Pakistan as well as you very well know, doesn't make everything they say correct.

 

[ramu]

No, I asked you credible evidence to support your claims that Pakistan supports the Taliban. Preferably a statement by any high ranking official that says so. Again, 1 million Afghans being killed by the Soviet invaders cannot be a figment of one's imagination, can it, whether I quote it from wikipedia or anywhere else? It's an actual event that took place, where Afghans actually died. If you can provide substantiated evidence (pictures, statements from high ranking officials, or anything credible free from speculation & conspiracy theories) about Pakistan's support for the Taliban, then we can start talking.

Nothing in this world will make you believe the truth that is staring you. You just ignore the elephant in the room and get caught up with all the paintings on the wall.

Good luck, you can be a good art critic.

 

[Solomon2]

I don't think there will be a coup over the drone strikes. At least I hope Kiyani is not so stupid as to give Zardari and the PPP another 'life line' -

A common mistake us smart people make is to underestimate the influence of stupidity.

Obviously the civilian side of government doesn't trust the military/intelligence complex much. if Zardari says "yes" to strikes but Kiyani says "no" who rules?

 

[ramu]

It is a US law outlining aid to Pakistan, not an international agreement between the US and Pakistan. Pakistan is under no obligation to do anything outlined in the KLL - it is the US that has to make the determination of whether Pakistan is fulfilling the conditions or not.

Similarly, the US is under no obligation to disburse aid to Pakistan even if Pakistan delivered 200% cooperation in the WoT, regardless of what the KLL states.

In my opinion Pakistan wants the aid and it cannot live without it. Is that not true? Can you convince your politicians to stop the aid from US to have a more independent policy and practice?

 

[53fd]

Nothing in this world will make you believe the truth that is staring you. You just ignore the elephant in the room and get caught up with all the paintings on the wall.

Good luck, you can be a good art critic.

A lot of credible evidence would convince me my friend. These are the things that would convince me of ISI's alleged involvement with the Taliban:

I would want ISI officials to be taken to the international court of justice, the ISI to be labeled as a terrorist organization & be blacklisted. But for that, you need credible evidence my friend, not BBC world articles or Coin Central. You would need testimonies from high ranking officials. You would also need statements from high ranking officials, such as Ambassadors of countries, or Presidents, saying the following statement: 'The Pakistani government/ISI supports the Taliban'. And then, for the ISI to be convicted for those charges. Any of these would suffice as conclusive proof.

 

[53fd]

A common mistake us smart people make is to underestimate the influence of stupidity.

Obviously the civilian side of government doesn't trust the military/intelligence complex much. if Zardari says "yes" to strikes but Kiyani says "no" who rules?

When Musharraf was in power, he was both the COAS & the President, & he personally authorized the drone attacks as the President of Pakistan, which is why the Army was so maligned during his time, & he was losing the support of the Army as well. However, it is always the President of Pakistan that approves these drone attacks, after which the Army/Intelligence assists the US in pointing out the targets for these drone attacks, despite any reservations they have, they are in no position to call off the strikes without the prior admission of the civilian government (unless a COAS overthrows the civilian government, & assumes the responsibility of a President, which Musharraf did before).

 

[ramu]

A lot of credible evidence would convince me my friend. These are the things that would convince me of ISI's alleged involvement with the Taliban:

I would want ISI officials to be taken to the international court of justice, & be labeled as a terrorist organization & be blacklisted. But for that, you need credible evidence my friend, not BBC world articles or Coin Central. You would need testimonies from high ranking officials. You would also need statements from high ranking officials, such as Ambassadors of countries, or Presidents, saying the following statement: 'The Pakistani government/ISI supports the Taliban'. And then, for the ISI to be convicted for those charges. Any of these would suffice as conclusive proof.

Credible evidence in a public forum is difficult to provide to people who want to view everything with shades of what they think is right. But if you want evidence admissible in the court of law, it is a different thing and cannot be provided on this forum. I have read enough articles American, European and South Asian that agree on some fundamental turn of events in the early and mid 90s that relate to Afghanistan and Pakistan's influence to the same turn of events. If this is not resourceful enough to make a legitimate conclusion that Pakistan support of Taliban is a given, I am lost for words.

If everyone argues in a way you do where you dismiss the sources such as Daily Times as conspiracy when it does not suit you, I believe we cannot have any healthy exchange.

 

[Solomon2]

I would want ISI officials to be taken to the international court of justice, & be labeled as a terrorist organization & be blacklisted. But for that, you need credible evidence my friend, not BBC world articles or Coin Central. You would need testimonies from high ranking officials. You would also need statements from high ranking officials, such as Ambassadors of countries, or Presidents, saying the following statement: 'The Pakistani government/ISI supports the Taliban'. And then, for the ISI to be convicted for those charges. Any of these would suffice as conclusive proof.

These things would NOT stand as proof in my eyes. And what is the point of outlawing organizations while letting the individuals that comprise them remain free?

No, outlawing the ISI isn't the answer, for only the label will change. Making the ISI and other secret agencies accountable for their actions to elected officials is. And more: they all have to be forbidden from taking part, directly or indirectly, in campaign and election processes. They have done this too many times since independence, subverting the democratic process.

The problem with such a recommendation is twofold: (1) politicians see the agencies as a means to hinder their enemies and wield grass-roots violence, and (2) the secret agencies personnel themselves have for a long time seen themselves as wielders of political power; that's why they chose their path in life.

 

[ramu]

...

No, outlawing the ISI isn't the answer, for only the label will change. Making the ISI and other secret agencies accountable for their actions to elected officials is. And more: they all have to be forbidden from taking part, directly or indirectly, in campaign and election processes. They have done this too many times since independence, subverting the democratic process.

...

Asking for real democracy in Pakistan ... Not possible. Within the remit of Army, democracy is allowed to run as a side kick. Pulling the plug is always an option with the Army. Please do not ask for accountability when the plug can be pulled at will.

 

[Imran Khan]

he should refuse and resist to all drone attacks not limited unlimited we want no drones attacks at all.

 

[53fd]

Credible evidence in a public forum is difficult to provide to people who want to view everything with shades of what they think is right. But if you want evidence admissible in the court of law, it is a different thing and cannot be provided on this forum. I have read enough articles American, European and South Asian that agree on some fundamental turn of events in the early and mid 90s that relate to Afghanistan and Pakistan's influence to the same turn of events. If this is not resourceful enough to make a legitimate conclusion that Pakistan support of Taliban is a given, I am lost for words.

If everyone argues in a way you do where you dismiss the sources such as Daily Times as conspiracy when it does not suit you, I believe we cannot have any healthy exchange.

Do you believe every Indian article from any Indian media source is 100% correct all the time? I do not use articles from Pakistani sources to prove or dismiss claims, I always try to use outside sources. Hence, I do not quote articles from news.pk or Daily Times when they claim that the ISI says that RAW is involved in Pakistan, in aiding the TTP, BLA or BLF. Just like India's involvement in Pakistan is yet to be proven here, the same applies to Pakistan's alleged involvement with the Taliban or in Afghanistan.

 

[Solomon2]

Asking for real democracy in Pakistan ... Not possible. Within the remit of Army, democracy is allowed to run as a side kick. Pulling the plug is always an option with the Army. Please do not ask for accountability when the plug can be pulled at will.

Yes, Benazir Bhutto's mistake was to work within the system: no sooner did she return than the assassination attempts started - usually without serious police investigations afterward, and the sites were cleaned of evidence. Without hope of justice, then, wouldn't it be better to challenge the system from without, building up a new, parallel democracy?

 

[53fd]

These things would NOT stand as proof in my eyes. And what is the point of outlawing organizations while letting the individuals that comprise them remain free?

The impartiality of the International Court of Justice is accepted by everyone, so yes, that would stand as credible proof in my eyes.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

If True than Thankyou Raymond Davis...!!!

 

[ramu]

Yes, Benazir Bhutto's mistake was to work within the system: no sooner did she return than the assassination attempts started - usually without serious police investigations afterward, and the sites were cleaned of evidence. Without hope of justice, then, wouldn't it be better to challenge the system from without, building up a new, parallel democracy?

The environment in Pakistan is not conducive for real democracy. Even if external force/influence is applied on the army to run a real democracy will fail. Army can easily get the population worked up by creating imaginary enemies which they can show are not dealt because of the limitation of the system.

Time and again people believe the army is right. It is not common for people to welcome military rule in Pakistan after a abysmal performance by a democratically elected government but this does not happen in other countries even if the ruling government is incompetent / corrupt. Army letting democracy live by the side in itself is derogatory to such a system.