What's new

Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism, Chris Alexander says

chutiyapa.jpg
:lol::lol::lol::lol:
ye-bakwas-phir-se-post-ki-toh-mar-dalunga.jpg


:omghaha:
 
. . .
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.

now Canada is going to attack Pakistan with both her tanks and 130 soldiers
 
.
No, it just from one guy.


Except that you're wrong. Read the article that I posted, it's what I've been saying since the entire incident began. This has been debated to death, and has been proven Pakistan is not a guilty party.

Does RAW know the location of every single maoist terrorist in India? If so, why not go after them? Why is the so called "red corridor" allowed to exist? Either RAW is complicit, or they're the biggest idiots who shame everyone by calling themselves an intelligence agency.

Don't agree with me? That's fine, but you should know that I used your logic, so disagreeing with me would mean disagreeing with yourself.

Guilty by proximity is a dumb argument to make, so never make it again.

RAW and maoists??? We not even deployed army against maoists.. Paramillitary taking them.. Read india maoists in wiki or other sources.. Then you will realise why our govt is soft against them.. Their armed wing strength is less than 8000 , and majority are poor ladies and children..
how can you compare them with international terrorists.. Do they killed someone outside india.. This is our internal matter..
taking some odd article is not a good option.. Everybody in the world knows the truth.. I can posts thousands of news sources against your one odd article..
 
.
RAW and maoists??? We not even deployed army against maoists.. Paramillitary taking them.. Read india maoists in wiki or other sources.. Then you will realise why our govt is soft against them.. Their armed wing strength is less than 8000 , and majority are poor ladies and children..
how can you compare them with international terrorists.. Do they killed someone outside india.. This is our internal matter..
taking some odd article is not a good option.. Everybody in the world knows the truth.. I can posts thousands of news sources against your one odd article..
How about reading all my posts before commenting? The same principle stands true, no matter who the cat and the mouse are.

Fact is that common logic dictates that evidence is needed in order to prove someone's guilt, so far no evidence has be provided other than speculation and an obsession to scapegoat.

Obviously no point in continuing discussion....i have no credible proof per say of pakistani involvement, only hypothesis that having the world's most wanted man in your borders must have some kind of internal collusion...which you must agree is a valid assumption.Anyway, lets hope some U.S files on this hunt gets declassified, then we would be in a better position to discuss this issue.

P.S : Maoists millitary activity is at an all time low, all that once powerfull organisation can cough up now is one or two attacks a year.

Guilt by proximity, I've said it before, that logic makes no sense; But yes, since there is no credible evidence, continuing this discussion is pointless.

As for the Maoists, as long as they still exist, my argument still stands.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom