Predator in Pakistan

[batmannow]

for those who still think that, idealogical PAKISTAN still exits plz... wake up my friends? idealogical pakistan is nearly destroyed or in other words about to finish. its all was done because pakistani nation was sleeping .

biger examples , canbe found in the recent past that even newly appointed CHEIF OF ARMY was being apointed after long dialoge with US sec. of STATE ms, CONDALEZA RICE and after geting green light from USA adminstration he, got appointed.

although , newly appointed COAS is highly rated professinal gentlman and as a commander he can be best of the best , there is no question about this but the fact is that USAs role in runing pakistan has been undeniable and is about to grow bigger and more in size in comming future.

even , examples canbe found everyday , with AMREICAN ambsdr to pakistan giving adivices to pakistani political leaders like a headmistress to a kindergarden school.there is a total control of USA on every day affairs in pakistan.

and it all was done for the betterment and progress of common people of pakistan by pakistani ruling elite. in the begaining it was CARROAT AND RABBIT policy from USA , but after that become a habbit to rabit to eat the carroat! so in this kind of situation it isnt shocking to here about a PREDATOR FLYING in pakistani AEROSPACE and doing all not to mention preadator canbe very best in finding **** NUKEs ,PAKISTANS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and thier crurent ground positions.

with new political goverment on its way to islamabad, i gusss there no hope that USAs role willbe going down. as far as i thought , ZARDARI AND SHARIFs will be willing to do more and give more , and to take more.

 

[fatman17]

there has been another missile strike in waziristan today killing 10-12 militants. it is a direct response to the suicide attack on Maj-Gen Baig of AMC.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

for those who still think that, idealogical PAKISTAN still exits plz... wake up my friends? idealogical pakistan is nearly destroyed or in other words about to finish. its all was done because pakistani nation was sleeping .

don't worry, take it easy. has everyone forgotten how KGB in partnership with KHAD/R&AW launched bomb attacks on pakistanis during the soviet afghan era? how the BLA mysteriously surfaced, sindhusesh and pakhtunistan separatist groups were a threat? we were under a threat from a superpower at that time and now history repeats itself. I truly believe Allah protects pakistan.

 

[Always Neutral]

there has been another missile strike in waziristan today killing 10-12 militants. it is a direct response to the suicide attack on Maj-Gen Baig of AMC.

Missile strike kills 13 in Pakistan - UPI.com

[/QUOTE]Missile strike kills 13 in Pakistan


Published: Feb. 28, 2008 at 7:10 AM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Feb. 28 (UPI) -- At least 13 people died and 11 were injured in a missile strike Thursday on a seminary and a house in Pakistan's South Waziristan tribal region, officials said.

The missile hit the school and a house in the Azam Warsak area of the province while students were asleep, shaking the entire area, the Press Trust of India reported.

It was not known whether the missile was fired by coalition forces in Afghanistan or by Pakistani forces, PTI said. The strike occurred as local militants in South Waziristan called for a unilateral cease-fire in the region.

Residents reported three missiles were fired, but officials said only one missile struck the seminary.[/QUOTE]

It seems more to be a unilateral strike by a Predator then anything do with the retaliation for the bombing of Maj. Gen.

Regards

 

[MIG_ACE]

If you guys don't like the predators operating in Pakistan but don't want to piss off the americans as well why not just shoot down a couple of them whenever you track them on radar and then claim that you thought it was an Indian aircraft?

 

[batmannow]

MY DEAR GENTMAN MR, ASAAD SIR,
i beg to state that whatever had happened in the past was a history. now what ever is pakistan going through is now and i may add pakistan wasnt so much volunarable in the past to anyone and whatever the reservations you have about SOVIET UNION OF RUSSIA were basicly based on the conclusions were 100% injected by western and USA backed print materiels and CIA SPONSORED media reports.

REALITY is very different my friend and if russia wanted to do or achive that time, WHATEVER is your thinking is! RUSSIA WOULD never gave pakistan STEELMILL and russia wouldnt be so helpful to pakistan.

I have jst 1 question for you, how many projects and how many mills, how many factories were made by USA in pakistan?

pakistanis were just impreesd by USAs lollypop (f-16s) and billions of US-dollars to pakistani leadership both milatary and political.

 

[maqsad]

Good point. USA gave pakistan F-16 lollypops which broke the bank, in conjunction with Saudis they gave pakistan a big brainwashed jihadi culture starting from Zia which is straining pakistan now. Russia and China have given pakistan steel mills, indiginous aerospace technology, hydel construction and more. US threatens to bomb pakistan into the stone age but China and Russia promised to develop pakistan into the modern age.

Maybe this quote from Ayub Khan needs to be considered: "It is dangerous to be an enemy of America but it is fatal to be its ally". People need to stop looking at Russia as some big bad bear. And obviously China is a better meaning ally to Pakistan than the US.

 

[khanz]

this quite interesting for me i was reading about pak military a few days and coincidentally according to wiki pakistan apparently does have predators atleast one it says also one was used in the lal masjid incident and is also listed in PAF inventory dunno if it's true though but it seems to be mentioned.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Energon:

In my opinion you are stretching the definition of Vassal state extremely thin to apply it to Pakistan. As a relatively small economy, Pakistan has been periodically dependent upon international financial institutions for support to prop up its economy, as have several other nations, but that dependence alone does not justify your argument. You are incorreclty relating the experience of Latin American (LA) nations with IFI's to Pakistan. The GoP, despite a huge amount of pressure and cajoling, never initiated the sort of "privatization programs" and divestment of State responsibility that the LA nations did under IFI pressure. Large State enterprises and institutions served as too big of a cash cow for the politicians, as well as "employment banks" for their supporters, to reduce Government control over. You are going to have to expound upon how you see Pakistani economic policy compromised to IFI (US) interests for me to agree with you on that - right now I don't see any major policy capitulation to American interests in the economic sphere.

Your other argument relates to economic pressure from IFI's (US) in the strategic sphere. Here too a don't see any validation of your argument. Lets go back to the Afghan war, the Pakistanis were quite enthusiastic about cooperating with the CIA to beat back the Soviets because they saw a Pakistani interest (lets leave the argument over whether it was correct or not alone for now) in that war, not because the US "pressured" or "pushed" its policy upon them.

US or IFI pressure never deterred Pakistan form pursuing its nuclear or missile programs, despite sanctions from the US. That instance of attempted US pressure indicates that despite being militarily overwhelmed, economically stagnant and arguably more dependent upon IFI support than ever, Pakistan refused to cave in when its own strategic interests diverged from those of the US.

When it comes to the Taliban issue after 911 - US interaction with Pakistan was a lot more "intimate" precisely because we had been the driving force behind the Taliban, and were its main supporters at that time (for some time with implicit US support). They were essentially "our guys", and it was imperative for the US to make clear that such a relationship could not exist in isolation of its view that the Taliban regime was supporting organizations and ideology dedicated to destroying the US and attacking its assets the world over. In domestic Pakistani politics, this was also a time when Zia's prodigy, Nawaz Sharif, had been kicked out of power and the Pakistani leader happened to be a liberal autocrat who personally at least disagreed with "extremism".

The decision to support US objectives (indeed world objectives, given the sympathy behind the US after 911) after 911 was but natural - and correct morally and ethically. I find it slightly disingenuous to ignore the global sentiment in play at that time and interpret the US-Pakistan interaction from a very narrow prism to justify the "vassal state" argument. How many nations in the world, even independent of IFI support, could afford to continue supporting a regime that was directly linked to harboring the 911 masterminds? You cannot tell me with a straight face that India, even with its much larger economy and detachment from the "US sphere of influence", would have actually said that it would continue supporting the Taliban.

The final "event" is the deployment of the Pakistan Army in FATA. On this I would agree with you that Pakistan would rather not have deployed its army there, since the employment of force was not the preferred means of dealing with FATA, and only did so because of US pressure. But even here the dynamics at play go beyond simple "capitulation to US interests". There was a worldwide movement against terrorism, and a recognition that Afghanistan, the Taliban specifically, were its epicenter. In a situation like that, what country would want to allow its territory to be used as a launching pad for these "evil, globally recognized terrorists"?

The options were to deploy Pakistan's own forces to check such activity, or allow NATO to do so. Pakistan couldn't just say "don't come into our area, but we won't stop them from attacking you either". Regardless of whether the Pakistani people agreed with the idea or not, Pakistani security forces had to be deployed. I would argue that this did not come about solely because of US pressure, but Global Pressure, and it wasn't global pressure over an issue where one could argue there were two sides, each equally as legitimate. There was no opposing the evil of 911, there was only one side that could be supported. This was a new dynamic in the world, terrorism, one that no nation could overtly support or be linked to. By not deploying its military in FATA, Pakistan wasn't just taking on the US, it was taking on Global sentiment.

I think a lot of the events in Pakistan's history can be viewed through different lenses, and one can interpret them differently . However, I will repeat, some of the most important strategic events in Pakistan's history have occurred despite severe opposition, and sometimes sanction, from the US. Development in Pakistan has not been retarded by IFI or US conditionallities, but because of a culture of corruption and inefficiency, a lack of investment in the social sector, and an instability in governance as well as regionally with conflicts with India. Therefore I don't buy the "vassal state" argument, at this point.

However, I do think the client state argument can be made much more effectively with respect to some Arab states, specifically Saudi Arabia and the UAE.