Pak accused of distorting Bush comments

[Marathaman]

Well, now that Pakistan is toeing the US line, you will hardly expect them to accuse Pakistan of anything.

I don't agree that the most recent report is the most relevant one, since I'm not just talking about the year 2006 or 2007.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well, now that Pakistan is toeing the US line, you will hardly expect them to accuse Pakistan of anything.

I don't agree that the most recent report is the most relevant one, since I'm not just talking about the year 2006 or 2007.

Perhaps, but if we are toeing the U.S line, which is "War on terror", then that should be wonderful should it not? And I would argue that recent reports are the most relevant and most accurate since they show the direction a country is going in.

You could also spin this in another way; because the U.S Pakistan relationship had become estranged, in the aftermath of sanctions, they lost most of their credible connections and sources within the Pakistani military and intelligence establishment, thereby having to rely on indirect sources, analysis (possibly Indian intel). In such a scenario, it would be extremely plausible that the older analysis was incorrect, and now that the U.S Pakistan ties have warmed up again, and they have more direct contacts with the establishment, their analysis becomes more accurate and positive. It just so happened that the WOT acted as a catalyst for this "warmth" in the relationship, and subsequent "positive" view of Pakistan.

 

[Marathaman]

Perhaps, but if we are toeing the U.S line, which is "War on terror", then that should be wonderful should it not? And I would argue that recent reports are the most relevant and most accurate since they show the direction a country is going in.

You could also spin this in another way; because the U.S Pakistan relationship had become estranged, in the aftermath of sanctions, they lost most of their credible connections and sources within the Pakistani military and intelligence establishment, thereby having to rely on indirect sources, analysis (possibly Indian intel). In such a scenario, it would be extremely plausible that the older analysis was incorrect, and now that the U.S Pakistan ties have warmed up again, and they have more direct contacts with the establishment, their analysis becomes more accurate and positive. It just so happened that the WOT acted as a catalyst for this "warmth" in the relationship, and subsequent "positive" view of Pakistan.

Hmm..I'm sure that the CIA has got better sources than some "friendly" Pakistani or Indian sources.

Apart from that, you can clearly see that the latest report is echoing the Bush administration's views about Pakistan.

As far as the positive view is concerned, the report clearly indicates that the current situation is an improvement over the previous years, which implies that Pakistan hasn't done much to counter terror in Kashmir, Baluchistan etc in the past.


It fails to mention anything about ISI or state terror. So its neither a negation or a validation of the earlier 2001 report.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Yet india took no refugees from afghanistan.when they wanted a safe place they came to pakistan.

Refugees found it preferable to cross over to the Pashtun areas of Pakistan.

Perhaps India was being cussed and wanted Pakistan to face the same consequences as India faced when it was flooded with East Pakistan refugees in 1971. As also, perhaps, it was felt that a majority could be Taliban and Mujahideens, they could foment terrorism in India without problems and India could not complain since she,herself, invited them!

*******

The reason why Pakistan toed the US line was at that time was because Pakistan was being ostracised and was being segregated from the comity of nations. In fact, if one recalls, there was this clamour to declare Pakistan as a failed state and a rogue state, as also the hassle about not allowing Pakistan to return to the Commonwealth!

Therefore, since US had become the decider of world opinion, Musharraf, who was in dire need to establish his credentials as the head of State, as also to give a fillip to the Pakistani economy through WB and IMF (since that would endear him to the Pakistani people and establish him as a different and benevolent military dictator unlike others before him),Musharraf realised that the US alone could do the trick.

Notwithstanding, it was the best move Musharraf did for himself and for Pakistan, even if it meant warring against fellow religionists.

 

[Keysersoze]

Hmm..I'm sure that the CIA has got better sources than some "friendly" Pakistani or Indian sources.

Apart from that, you can clearly see that the latest report is echoing the Bush administration's views about Pakistan.

I somehow doubt that they do.........sometimes the capabilities of certain organisations are exaggerated by myth and legends. Intel is best generated by people on the ground. who do you think has more?

 

[Marathaman]

They are concerned about "reports", from whom? The Indians? Hardly qualifies as a substantive indictment of "Pakistani involvement in terror". Though Pakistan itself has admitted to "moral"/"logistical" support for the "freedom fighters" in Kashmir, which I concede.

I would consider logistical support as state sponsored terror.
What more do you want? Soldiers disguised as mujahideens?
Even that happened in Kargil.

 

[Adux]

There is a difference between logisitical and moral support. Logistics is material support, therefore a crime. When is Pakistan going to act like a matured country.

 

[PakSniper]

There is a difference between logisitical and moral support. Logistics is material support, therefore a crime. When is Pakistan going to act like a matured country.

Funny I understand India has been supplying the rebels in Balochistan with logistical support. When is India going to act like mature country.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Apart from that, you can clearly see that the latest report is echoing the Bush administration's views about Pakistan.

And the previous reports were echoing the XYZ's views about Pakistan......

 

[Bull]

Yet india took no refugees from afghanistan.when they wanted a safe place they came to pakistan.

This is stupid. How are they suppose to come to India? Charter a flight or walk thru Pakistan?

 

[Bull]

From the State Dept.
They are concerned about "reports", from whom? The Indians? Hardly qualifies as a substantive indictment of "Pakistani involvement in terror". Though Pakistan itself has admitted to "moral"/"logistical" support for the "freedom fighters" in Kashmir, which I concede.

So what your point? US is worried about Pakistan's continued support to Kashmiri extremists which Pakistan has admitted openly supporting

Kashmir issue again, and the argument can be raised that it is impossible to completely stop movement across such terrain. It can also be argued that the CIA helped the ISI "support terrorists" in Afghanistan, so the West can hardly claim its own hands are clean on this count..

The Muslims/Pakistan still think its about right and wrong...hws kiddish. Its about your interests, then it was in their interest to use mujahideens to defeat the Russians. The Pakistanis fell for the Mujahideen help as a genuine help to the Muslims cause and paid the price and continues to do so.

 

[BATMAN]

There are many in Afghanistan who have been educated in India.

All prominent leaders of northern alliance and ruling clan were educated in India.
There are masses of Afghans, who studied in Pakistan. Including the wife of Hamid Karzai, who studied in Pakistan, Peshawr medical college.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So what your point? US is worried about Pakistan's continued support to Kashmiri extremists which Pakistan has admitted openly supporting

I was merely pointing out that the language in the report was vague. There has never been, as far as I know, a damning statement regarding Pakistani "involvement in terror" the way there has been about Iran and Syria for example.

Also, as Marathaman pointed out, there is nothing about the ISI or State sponsored terror in the 2006 report, I would argue that means, coupled with the vague statement of "reports indicate" from 2001, that the State Department did not really have any evidence to implicate Pakistan in "involvement in terror".

The Muslims/Pakistan still think its about right and wrong...hws kiddish. Its about your interests, then it was in their interest to use mujahideens to defeat the Russians. The Pakistanis fell for the Mujahideen help as a genuine help to the Muslims cause and paid the price and continues to do so.

Perhaps some Muslims/Pakistanis do think it is about right and wrong, but you must have interacted with enough of us on this board and elsewhere to realize that not all of us do. Quite a few of us recognize the "strategic implications" that led to the support of the "militants" in Afghanistan.

 

[roadrunner]

The Muslims/Pakistan still think its about right and wrong...hws kiddish. Its about your interests, then it was in their interest to use mujahideens to defeat the Russians. The Pakistanis fell for the Mujahideen help as a genuine help to the Muslims cause and paid the price and continues to do so.

The Mujahideen were the Afghans that fought in the Soviet-Afghan war, not the idiots from Lal Masjid who never fought in anything. They are radicals not Mujahideen. The only person I've heard declaring war on Pakistan is AlZawahiri, again not Mujahideen. Now people like Hekmatyar (not Dostum who switched sides even joining forces with the Soviets in true Uzbek/Tajik style), and others were the real Mujahideen that fought the Soviets. The anti-Pakistani radicalism I think has just come from the outside recently.

 

[Marathaman]

The Mujahideen were the Afghans that fought in the Soviet-Afghan war, not the idiots from Lal Masjid who never fought in anything. They are radicals not Mujahideen. The only person I've heard declaring war on Pakistan is AlZawahiri, again not Mujahideen. Now people like Hekmatyar (not Dostum who switched sides even joining forces with the Soviets in true Uzbek/Tajik style), and others were the real Mujahideen that fought the Soviets. The anti-Pakistani radicalism I think has just come from the outside recently.

They might not be the same people.

However,the terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kashmir share one common bond that unites them. They have exactly the same ideology.

And in the end...that is just what matters.