What's new

Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism, Chris Alexander says

sree45

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Feb 28, 2013
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
1
Country
India
Location
India
Canada and its allies must take a united front against Pakistan because it is a state sponsor of terrorism that threatens world security, says Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander.

Alexander, a former ambassador to Afghanistan, said the fight against the Taliban and groups like al-Qaeda will never be won in Afghanistan alone because it is a “cross-border conflict” supported by the Pakistan government.

Speaking on a special edition of CBC's Power & Politics about Canada’s legacy in Afghanistan, Alexander said the world has only caught up with that reality in recent years, despite long-standing warnings from Afghanistan that Pakistan is a big part of the problem.

“This is state sponsorship of terrorism. It’s covert. It’s been denied. Not even Western analysts agree that it’s happening on the scale we know it to be happening,” he told host Evan Solomon.

Alexander, who authored the book The Long Way Back: Afghanistan’s Quest for Peace, called for continued support for Afghans who are fighting against the Taliban and for security and democracy as Canada and other countries wrap up prolonged military missions. But he also urged allies to confront Pakistan.

“We need to have a united front in dealing with Pakistan. The civilian government there doesn’t control military policy, strategic policy.… the army and the intelligence service do,” he said.” And they have denied the obvious, postponed this reckoning for years with so many terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, that are doing so much harm around the world, still based in that country, this should be a priority for everyone.”

Alexander said the international community must address the Pakistan situation urgently because it’s “all connected” with other trouble spots — linked to Syria and Iraq because so many militants and jihadis are going there, and also linked to foreign policy on Russia.

'Haven for terrorists'
Pakistan's tribal region along the border of Afghanistan has long been labelled a "haven for terrorists." But Alexander said even people within Pakistan aren’t aware of the degree of official involvement. He cited a recent New York Times article (censored in Pakistan) that focused on Pakistan’s relationship with al-Qaeda and its knowledge of Osama bin Laden hiding within its borders.

“The civilian government will say we don’t control it, it happens behind closed doors in places run by the army, run by the ISI (Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence). The Pakistani population doesn’t know this is happening. But it has to be said. You can not, they have not, trained, financed, equipped the Taliban on this scale without the institutional involvement with these groups. And they are negotiating with the Taliban — trying to lie down with the lion inside Pakistan in spite of all the loss of life inside Pakistan. This has got to change.”

Former Canadian diplomat David Mulroney, who served as deputy minister in charge of the Afghanistan Task Force overseeing co-ordination of Canada’s engagement in Afghanistan, said that if Alexander’s remarks represent the government's official position, they must be followed up with “real measures” and a “much tougher stance” against Pakistan.

“Tomorrow can’t be business as usual for our High Commission in Islamabad. We can’t have the same kind of co-operation with Pakistan,” he said. “And we have to make very certain that players like the Canadian Forces and our security establishment aren’t having one set of conversations with the Pakistanis while our diplomats are having another. We have to get really serious.”

Mulroney, distinguished senior fellow at the Munk School's Canada Centre for Global Security Studies, said Canada should engage in talks with Washington, where the "real levers" are.

Roland Paris, university research chair in International Security and Governance at the University of Ottawa, agreed that Alexander’s statement has significant implications for foreign policy.

“If this is Canadian government policy, that has implications for what we are doing. And if it’s Canadian government policy, the actions need to be brought into line with that policy. If it isn’t Canadian government policy, then minister Alexander should reconsider those words,” he said.

 
Ok, so we've heard all this before. What's new? Except that this time it's coming from the Canadians.

The world knows it but the US of A still keeps pouring in billions of dollars into Pakistan without Congressional oversight!! Has anyone checked to see where most of that money has gone? Do the Yanks check the bills? Nope!

Anyway, this shit spouted by all and sundry regularly like a broken record and cribbing no end is getting to be tiring. If the Canadians can't do anything about it, they should just STFU instead of pontificating what should or must be done. :blah:
 
You woke up late Mr. Chris Alexander, they are, for decades. :)
 
Good Taliban are our brothers. This is the common sense of our politicians and the Establishment.
 
Sore loser... We defeated soviets they were happy, now when they get their asses handed to them, they are crying:)
 
Canada and its allies must take a united front against Pakistan


tumblr_m3z70deZfJ1qcay1ao1_500.gif
 
Last edited:
I have tried to give some remarks on this issue before. Americans spent 650 billion dollars on Afghanistan war and still failed to achieve their objectives. First of all, it would be good to ask Americans what the actual objective of the war was? Was it to just annihilate Al Qaeda? Was there some other genuine concern for poor Afghani people? I will invite intelligent Americans to see strong correlation between both objectives.

Every US soldier deployed in Afghanistan costs their country at least several million dollars. You can erect a medium sized manufacturing factory in Afghanistan employing hundreds of Afghans in return for the money they spent on every soldier. And those Afghans who would have been employed and had a better life would have known you as their second god. You will win hearts instead of earning hatred something that more frequently happens now, and Al Qaeda will lose any sympathies whatever in the country. Really this is a food for thought for Americans if they happen to go into war in any country in the future.

Any war, in modern times, has to be an affair in which social scientists have to work alongside the army to find ways to win the hearts of the people of the target country, if indeed this is an objective. Armies just know how to fight and this is what they like to do but there are so many angles to wars that social scientists can consider while armies neglect them. This was also major reason for failure of Americans in Iraq war. My suggestions to Americans is that if you ever get into a war, keep your social scientists who can understand the population on better human levels and can anlayze actions and reactions, along with the bionic men of your army.
 
I have tried to give some remarks on this issue before. Americans spent 650 billion dollars on Afghanistan war and still failed to achieve their objectives. First of all, it would be good to ask Americans what the actual objective of the war was? Was it to just annihilate Al Qaeda? Was there some other genuine concern for poor Afghani people? I will invite intelligent Americans to see strong correlation between both objectives.
Every US soldier deployed in Afghanistan costs their country at least several million dollars. You can erect a medium sized manufacturing factory in Afghanistan employing hundreds of Afghans in return for the money they spent on every soldier. And those Afghans who would have been employed and had a better life would have known you as their second god. You will win hearts instead of earning hatred something that more frequently happens now, and Al Qaeda will lose any sympathies whatever in the country. Really this is a food for thought for Americans if they happen to go into war in any country in the future.
Any war, in modern times, has to be an affair in which social scientists have to work alongside the army to find ways to win the hearts of the people of the target country, if indeed this is an objective. Armies just know how to fight and this is what they like to do but there are so many angles to wars that social scientists can consider while armies neglect them. This was also major reason for failure of Americans in Iraq war. My suggestions to Americans is that if you ever get into a war, keep your social scientists who can understand the population on better human levels and can anlayze actions and reactions, along with the bionic men of your army.


I will request Americans to study both wars in the social and political science departments of their good universities and find what went wrong and what could have been done to win the wars and achieve your objectives with minimum expense. I am very sure that outcome of any intelligent analysis will be liked by every party involved in any future war and will also be liked by people of the rest of the world.
 
Last edited:
Canada supports Israeli state sponsored terrorism and the Western world is guilty of state terrorism and support of armed groups/military regimes/dictatorships/coups all around Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. Reported for meaningless thread.
 
Canada supports Israeli state sponsored terrorism and the Western world is guilty of state terrorism and support of armed groups/military regimes/dictatorships/coups all around Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. Reported for meaningless thread.

May I ask, why did you choose to live in the USA then ? I for one would never for example move to a country like Sri Lanka with its horrible record of killing Hindus
 
May I ask, why did you choose to live in the USA then ? I for one would never for example move to a country like Sri Lanka with its horrible record of killing Hindus

My parents want me here, I'd rather live somewhere else. However, what are my options? I don't want to move to the gulf or Saudi Arabia or Egypt. I prefer living in my homeland, my homeland was ethnically cleansed in 1948 and today it's a city in modern day central/northern Israel. If I go to Gaza it's going to be a struggle, no jobs there and little wages since it's impossible as Gaza is under a siege.
 
Back
Top Bottom