Thank You USA

[Fracker]

Lets apply some common sense. TTP is the ideological offspring of its saudi masters which is why TTP gets saudi funding.

what a stupid analoygy.. since, John has same name as me, that's why peter who is my friend is the friend of John..

Not surprisingly, Jamaat-e-Islami, a mouthpiece for the saudi salafis, continues to support the TTP and to this day is opposed to action in Swat and South Waziristan.

i guess you only find those who have beard.. can't see 100s of analyst didn't backed PA Operations in swat. Even IK who no where close to called a molvi went against this action.. JI's step was an political desition, and all politician can do any thing, just to get some attention and their personal interest..

 

[BATMAN]

Thank you brave soul

 

[lyns]

i can clearly see that people in this forum manly dont reflect the pakistani mindset in pakistan. thinktanks who are giving thanks to america for killing a terrorist in our homeland.
USA is not a friend but a enemy. agree or disagree? if agree, So how can u allow a enemy to operate inside ur contry. US is a snake it will give you "food" but take away your "job" so you will ble helpless.
its great that a terroist is dead. But we shoud not give them thanks, becouse they are not killing the for the world or for pakistan, but they are killing only for them selfs. so they can keep the dirty game on in afganistan and still gets pakistans suport.
oO have you heard that usa gov is planning to fokus the "war agians terror" more on pakistan?
US is givning pakistan small gains, so that he can still play his dirty game
when a "thinktank" is so short minded i get disgusted

 

[TruthSeeker]

All of you here on this thread who say and think that the USA is playing some "dirty" game with Pakistan and/or is behind the TTP are just plain wrong. You are not basing such views on any facts. You are saying these things out of xenophobic prejudice against the USA. The USA IS, of course, pursuing its national security interest, which is to defeat the terrorists who have attacked the USA. The ONLY reason Pakistan is involved is because Pakistan is allowing these terrorists to live, plan and attack from its territory. It isn't any more complicated than that. IF Pakistan could control its own territory, all of it, and prevent the terrorists it shelters from attacking people outside its borders, the USA would have no reason to worry about Pakistan's affairs or to send drone missile strikes into Pakistani territory. The sooner Pakistan gains physical control of its territory, the sooner this nightmare of USA attention will go away.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

All of you here on this thread who say and think that the USA is playing some "dirty" game with Pakistan and/or is behind the TTP are just plain wrong. You are not basing such views on any facts. You are saying these things out of xenophobic prejudice against the USA. The USA IS, of course, pursuing its national security interest, which is to defeat the terrorists who have attacked the USA. The ONLY reason Pakistan is involved is because Pakistan is allowing these terrorists to live, plan and attack from its territory. It isn't any more complicated than that. IF Pakistan could control its own territory, all of it, and prevent the terrorists it shelters from attacking people outside its borders, the USA would have no reason to worry about Pakistan's affairs or to send drone missile strikes into Pakistani territory. The sooner Pakistan gains physical control of its territory, the sooner this nightmare of USA attention will go away.

I don't agree with some of the arguments against the US and the drone strikes, but at the same time it should also be noted that the US/NATO, with all its resources and military might, has not been able to exert control over Afghanistan - so to argue that a similar lack of control over the insurgents in FATA justifies US controlled military action in FATA is a fallacious argument.

As I pointed out elsewhere, Pakistan has shown it does not lack the commitment to take on the Taliban (as seen in Swat), but it does lack the resources and technology to conduct drone strikes.

The drones need to be given to Pakistan to conduct operations on Pakistani territory.

 

[BATMAN]

Reply to truthseeker:

^^ WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER AUTHENTIC?
On page 8 i have posted statement from ISPR that Terrorist are supported by US.
Whay should we trust you more than the official statement of ISPR?

On top of this US have a track record of destroying nations and convicting people by fabricating fake charges, changing regimes, corrupting regimes etc. etc.

Stop this indian rehtoric of terrorist comming out of Pakistan!
It is all over the web that it is northern alliance and indians who are conspiring and killing american soldiers in afghanistan and civilinas in Pakistan.

We are fighting with foreign sponsored terroists as we speak ..... and this time we will not let your operatives go back to your barracks.

P.Musharraf is condeming in US about the US and indain nexus against Pakistan.... what do you believe ISPR and Musharraf are issuing baseless statements like indains?

 

[TruthSeeker]

to argue that a similar lack of control over the insurgents in FATA justifies US controlled military action in FATA is a fallacious argument.

As I pointed out elsewhere, Pakistan has shown it does not lack the commitment to take on the Taliban (as seen in Swat), but it does lack the resources and technology to conduct drone strikes.

The drones need to be given to Pakistan to conduct operations on Pakistani territory.

I did not say that Pakistan's lack of full territorial control "justifies" US drone strikes. I am merely saying that this lack of control EXPLAINS USA "meddling" in Pakistani affairs, including pressure on the political/military leadership and drone strikes themselves. That is, the USA desire to stabilize Afghanistan (so we can leave) and to neutralize international terrorists residing in Pakistan (so they don't continue to hatch plots and attack us) is the REAL reason, not some nefarious, convoluted conspiracy of the US/India/Israel against the Muslim world or to contain China (who is the USA's most important creditor). I am just asking the USA = TTP folks here to use some common sense and see the obvious reasons for things, not some triple deep level conspiracy, which doesn't exist.

I am trying to help them improve their ability to analyze the world they see. Their faulty analysis is as bad as the CIA's analysis of Saddam Hussein's WMD capability.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Guys - I think you are missing Muse's point here.

He is not criticizing your attempts to blame the US/India for supporting the TTP/assorted insurgent groups because he secretly supports such alleged activity - he is criticizing you because all this talk about the US and India supporting XYZ distracts from the real issue of going after the terrorists.

Think about this - why is Pakistan in a relatively strong position today compared to a few months ago?

Not because it acted against the Indians or the US or proved their complicity in terrorism in Pakistan, but because the government and military were able to build a consensus against the Taliban threat in Swat and act against it. We are strong because we eliminated that domestic threat.

That is what we need to focus on with the TTP in Swat as well - whoever supports Hakimullah, Qari Hussain, Waliur Rehman etc. does not matter right now - what matters is gathering the capability and resolve to destroy them. We can speculate on who their masters/backers were after their corpses are ******* in the ground or their tongues wagging in prison.

FOCUS - the immediate threat is the TTP, the immediate issue is Pakistani control over drones, not the drone attacks themselves, the immediate issues are the implications in the Kerry-Lugar bill that Pakistan supports terrorism currently or desires to, not accountability itself.

 

[Rashid Ahmed]

US CONFIEDENTIAL PLAN TO MOVE PAK & CHINA
September 22, 2009

BAGRAM AIR BASE, Afghanistan -- Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top military officer in Afghanistan, has told his commanders to pull forces out of sparsely populated areas where U.S. troops have fought bloody battles with the Taliban for several years and focus them on protecting major Afghan population centers.
But the changes, which amount to a retreat from some areas, have already begun to draw resistance from senior Afghan officials who worry that any pullback from Taliban-held territory will make the weak Afghan government appear even more powerless in the eyes of its people.
Senior U.S. officials said the moves were driven by the realization that some remote regions of Afghanistan, particularly in the Hindu Kush mountains that range through the northeast, were not going to be brought under government control anytime soon. "Personally, I think I am being realistic about this," said Maj. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, the commander of U.S. forces in eastern Afghanistan. "I have more combat power than my predecessors did, but I won't be as spread out. . . . This is all about freeing up some forces so I can get them out more among the people."
The changes are in line with McChrystal's confidential assessment of the war, which urges U.S. and NATO forces to "initially focus on critical high-population areas that are contested or controlled by insurgents."

The conflict between McChrystal's new strategy and the Afghan government has been most pronounced in Nurestan province, a forbidding region bordering Pakistan where U.S. commanders have been readying plans since late last year to pull out their soldiers and shutter outposts. Instead of leaving the area, U.S. commanders have actually been forced to bolster their presence in recent months.
In early July, Afghan President Hamid Karzai asked senior U.S. officials to dispatch a company of about 100 U.S. soldiers to Barge Matal, a village in the northern half of the province that is home to fewer than 500 people. Taliban insurgents had overrun the community and Karzai was insistent that that U.S. and Afghan forces wrest it back from the enemy. "I don't think anyone in the U.S. military wanted to be up there," said a senior military official who oversees troops fighting in the village.
Senior military officials had hoped to be out of Barge Matal in about a week, but the deployment has stretched on for more than two months as U.S. and Afghan forces have battled Taliban insurgents. Some insurgents seemed to be moving into the area from neighboring Pakistan solely to fight the U.S. troops there, said military officials. At least one U.S. soldier has been killed and several have been wounded.
Although the U.S. finally pulled its troops out of the village this week, the extended deployment to the area has had ripple effects throughout eastern Afghanistan, forcing frustrated U.S. military officials to postpone plans made months earlier to abandon other remote bases.
Because troops are especially vulnerable to ambush when they are closing a base, large numbers of cargo helicopters are needed to quickly pull soldiers and their equipment out of the area. For the last two months, a huge percentage of the U.S. cargo helicopter fleet in eastern Afghanistan has been dedicated to ferrying supplies to soldiers in Barge Matal, where there are few passable roads.
The remote area also has put large demands on the fleet of unmanned surveillance aircraft in Afghanistan, which are needed to help safeguard soldiers as they close outposts in hostile areas.
Most of the U.S. bases that commanders want to shutter in Nurestan were set up in 2004 and 2005 to interdict Taliban and foreign fighters moving through the area from Pakistan. "They made sense as a launching pad to go after the enemy when we were in more of a counterterrorism fight," said Col. Randy George, who oversees U.S. troops in four provinces in eastern Afghanistan. "But we are in a different strategy right now."
McChrystal's new strategy for Afghanistan places a priority on protecting the population and bolstering the Afghan government and its security forces. The soldiers in Nurestan are not well positioned to perform either of those missions.

Regards
Rashid Ahmed
Journalist

 

[muse]

Oct 7, 2009



Pakistan goes for militants' jugular
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

ISLAMABAD - Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari can be well pleased with his recent visit to New York, securing US$1.5 billion annually for five years in non-military aid and gaining unprecedented political support from over two dozen heads of states under the Friends of Democratic Pakistan initiative.

Now it is the turn of the military to deliver following its successful campaign this year in the Swat Valley in North-West Frontier Province: it is poised for a major operation in the heart of Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaeda territory, the North Waziristan and South Waziristan tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan.

The need for this operation in the two Waziristans, over which the Pakistani armed forces had previously expressed grave concerns, was agreed on in a meeting in New York last week between the
US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other US security officials and Zardari, who is also the supreme commander of the armed forces.

The director general of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, Lieutenant General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, has been in the US to coordinate the operation with the US. The aim, simply, is to conclusively defeat al-Qaeda at its global headquarters in the Waziristans.

Adding urgency to task was the brazen attack on Monday by a suicide bomber dressed as a member of the paramilitary Frontiers Corps on the United Nations' World Food Program's headquarters in the capital Islamabad, killing at least five aid workers.

Interior Minister Rehman Malik said on Tuesday that the Taliban carried out the attack to avenge the August 5 killing in a US Predator drone missile attack in South Waziristan of Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud. "We should expect a few more [attacks]," he said.

Asia Times Online has learned that the operation in the Waziristans will be actively supported with technical and intelligence support from the CIA for Pakistani ground troops as well as the air force.

Pakistan is confident that the chances of success are higher than ever, even though the military will be venturing into dangerous territory and that previous operations in other tribal areas have proved highly divisive and unpopular across much of the country.

Malik told Asia Times Online recently in New York that the time was now ripe as it is believed all of the top al-Qaeda commanders of the South Asian region, in addition to commanders who have fled Iraq, are now based in the Waziristans.

The Pakistani political establishment is also upbeat in that there is a new positive mood in the country; even the stock exchange has surged to its highest levels in one-and-a-half-years. But most importantly, the tone in the military establishment has changed.

Immediately after the president's return to Pakistan, armed forces spokesman Major General Athar Abbas, who had earlier rejected the idea of an operation in the Waziristans, speaking from the garrison city of Rawalpindi, confirmed that the tribal areas would be attacked.

"It [the operation] is only a matter of time, which of course, the military will not disclose or give any hint about."

Abbas did hint hint, though. He said the weather could be one of the many factors that planners were taking into account - the winter snows are well set in by late November.

"The rudderless leadership of the terrorists provides an ideal opportunity to launch operations and inflict a severe blow to the terrorists," Abbas said, presumably referring to the killing of Baitullah Mehsud.

The army has mounted several operations in the two Waziristans, but they have all resulted in heavy casualties. As a result, the military has tended to sign peace deals, most of them on the militants' terms and conditions. This gave a morale boost to the militants, and after each operation their numbers increased, and numbers which were pumped into Afghanistan to aid the insurgency there.

This time, the stage is better set for the military. With the help of the CIA, many of al-Qaeda's and the militants' leaders have been eliminated, with drone attacks being particularly effective.

The military is also buoyed by its operation in Swat. In late April, the military began a massive offensive and by early June declared that most of Swat had been freed from the Taliban and that Mingora, the main town of Swat, was in complete government control. In the process, though, millions of people were displaced, causing a major humanitarian crisis. Ironically, the attack in Islamabad on Monday targeted the very United Nations organization that had helped with this tragedy.

The Swat operation also saw the military fully commit to its task - indeed, some say it displayed a level of ruthlessness not seen since its crackdown on Bengali separatists in the former East Pakistan, a struggle that led to the creation of Bangladesh in 1971.

This was so much so that several Western media outlets, including the British Broadcasting Corporation, have released videos of torture allegedly committed by the armed forced against the Taliban, including extra-judicial killings.

In addition to all this, however, is the key part played by the Pakistani Interior Ministry, which resolved that the best way to sap the strength of al-Qaeda and the militants lay in cutting their financial arteries.

This is not a novel approach to root out militancy, but one that has not successfully been implemented by Pakistan.

Soon after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation targeted financial institutions and charities that supported al-Qaeda, with some success.

However, US institutions were unable to track the Taliban's financial arteries as these are mostly primitive, based on non-banking and non-traditional financial sources and tribal connections. Asia Times Online has documented how difficult it is to disrupt this flow of money. (See How the Taliban keep their coffers full Asia Times Online, June 10.)

Interior Minister Malik recognized the problem, and tackled it head-on, first with Baitullah's Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP - Taliban Movement of Pakistan).

In an interview in New York, Malik confidently claimed that over 80% of the financial arteries of the TTP and al-Qaeda's funds coming from the Middle East had been blocked.

"The TTP's approach was unique in all aspects and it could have been very hard to trace. First, the TTP gathered information from Mehsud tribal people living in the Middle East. They were mostly skilled and unskilled labors who sent money to their families through hundi [non-banking money transfers]. The TTP contacted these labors, individually, and warned them that a certain percentage of the money they sent to their families should be remitted to the TTP," Malik said.

"We carefully studied the whole mechanism before we moved for a clampdown. The first thread of the strategy was the scanning and subsequent clampdown on illegal money transfers through hundi businesses. We studied all the business deals of the money exchange companies who were mostly involved in such transfers.

"Previously, Pakistan received US$3 billion to $4 billion [in remittances] through banking channels. After our operations on the money exchange companies, you will see that our [foreign exchange] reserves have soared [from $7 billion to $8 billion] to $14 billion to $15 billion as we have not left any choice to the remitters except to send their money through [regular] banking channels," Malik said, implying that the money the country now received from remittances had doubled.

"However, in this broader operation, we traced a triangular syndicate based in Pakistan comprising al-Qaeda, the TTP and the jihadi organizations, like the Laskhar-e-Jhangvi. Sometimes they got financial support from Middle Eastern philanthropists. Our intelligence agencies tracked the whole mechanism of how the money traveled from one hand to the other, so, for instance, money aimed for al-Qaeda benefited the whole syndicate. This syndicate had so strongly knitted its financial arteries together that they [militants] were able to hire a fighter for $500 per month," Malik said.

"After 9/11, security institutions tried to break down financial arteries. They spotted several institutions and successfully blocked their financial support. However, in the past few years, the dynamics of the money supply to those terror networks changed. They split themselves into segments and they developed a human chain network which could pass on cash from one hand to the other.

"In the past year, the situation became more complicated as the financial arteries feeding the insurgencies to this region and to Iraq were merged in our region," Malik said, adding that it happened because after the US military operation in Iraq against al-Qaeda, all top al-Qaeda operators relocated in North Waziristan and South Waziristan.

Having begun the process of strangling the financial lifeblood of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Islamabad now feels it is in a position to go for the jugular with an all-out military offensive. In Pakistan's eyes, this battle will be the start of the endgame. The militants might view it differently, as just the beginning of a real war.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com

 

[Student]

Thank You USA for killing our civilians
Thank You USA for ruining our economy
Thank You USA for draging us into war
Thank You USA for appointing Voiceroy Mr Richard Butcher
Thank You USA for accepting innocent people flesh as kosher meat
Thank You USA for death and destruction
Thank You USA for bribing our elite
Thank You USA for croocked terms and aggrements
Thank You USA for KFC and McDonalds while people starve to death
Thank You USA for buying our curropt politicians
Long Live Pakistan

 

[muse]

Hillary, Gates vow sustained US engagement with Pakistan


Wednesday, October 07, 2009
WASHINGTON: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates vowed a sustained US engagement with Pakistan and Afghanistan, with the top American diplomat acknowledging that the Pakistanis are “rightful” in asking about United States’ long-term commitment to their country.

Secretary Clinton commended the current Pakistani government’s resolve to fight out militants in the restive Afghan border region, saying that level of commitment was missing in the past. “Well, what we say is that we want to be supportive and provide assistance. And we want to ramp that up,” Clinton told CNN in a joint appearance with Secretary Gates.

The panel discussion with the top Obama administration leaders by CNN’s Christiane Amanpour and the channel’s former Washington Bureau Chief Frank Sesno took place at the George Washington University.

To back up her argument, Clinton cited last week’s passage of the $7.5 billion Kerry-Lugar-Berman Bill by the US Congress, calling it a “very important piece of legislation, that made a commitment to additional aid for Pakistan’s civilian government and to deliver services to the people of Pakistan.”

“So we are telling them (Pakistanis) that we think that this is an important (anti-terror) commitment that they’ve made. “But, again, I would just ask to you put this in some historic perspective...we partnered with Pakistan to supply the Mujahideen with the weapons and training that they needed to defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, once that was accomplished, we left,” said Clinton.

She was asked about the recent statements made by the Pakistani president, the prime minister and the foreign minister on Washington showing long-standing commitment to the region at this critical moment and in the light of an intense debate within the Obama Administration on finding a workable way forward in the region, particularly in conflict-wrecked Afghanistan.

“And Pakistan feels like we left them holding the bag, because all of a sudden they were awash in weapons, they were awash in drugs. They had all of these, you know, Jihadists who had been trained up in conjunction with us. And, you know, we know what happened. We saw that occurring in Afghanistan.

“So I think it’s rightful of the Pakistanis to say, Well, how long will your commitment be? How much will you be by our side as we take on these threats to us and, by the way, also to you?” she added.

Secretary Clinton said in its discussions the Obama Administration was “defining our objectives, and we’re then trying to set forth the strategy and the tactics to achieve those objectives.”

Secretary Gates also reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to forge ties with Pakistan over the long haul and cited assurance he gave to Islamabad’s Ambassador in Washington Husain Haqqani last week.

“Well, first of all, I think that there is absolutely no reason for the president not to consider very carefully the next steps in Afghanistan. I had lunch with the Pakistani ambassador last week, and I made absolutely clear to him that we are not leaving Afghanistan.”

Gates said fostering partnership and trust with Pakistan was a strategic objective of the United States. The discussion underway within the administration is about next steps forward, he stated.

“And the president has some momentous decisions to make. And while there may be some short-term uncertainty on the part of our allies, in terms of those next steps, there should be no uncertainty in terms of our determination to remain in Afghanistan and to continue to build a relationship of partnership and trust with the Pakistanis. That’s long term. That’s a strategic objective of the United States for — for a number of reasons that Pakistan is a strategically important country.”

In answer to a question, Gates said Pakistani intelligence developed a close relationship with the Mujahideen during the US-supported Jihad against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s but emphasised that “the clear path forward is — for us to underscore to the Pakistanis that we — we are not going to turn our backs on them as we did in 1989 and 1990.”

“We turned our backs on Afghanistan. We turned our backs on Pakistan. They were left to deal with the situation in Afghanistan on their own. “Their worry is what happens in the future. Will we be there? Will we be a constant presence? Will we be supportive of them over the long term?

“I think, in terms of the way they look at Afghanistan, the way they look at the region, it depends on the degree of confidence that they have in us that we will be a reliable partner of theirs going forward. I think that shapes the view of the Pakistani government, and that includes the ISI.” Gates warned a victory by insurgents in Afghanistan would allow al-Qaeda to resume a foothold in the country and provide it with a “hugely empowering message.”

 

[muse]

Feel less, Think more -- but this is too difficult for jamaatis to understand:

In earlier posts I pointed out that Pakistan are at least equal partners in the Drone operations but for plausible deniablity owing to inablity of a section of the public to deal with reality -- in even earlier posts I pointed out that Pakistan must keep her interests above every thing else - some say the US is no friend, others say US is no enemy - but are these the only options for Pakistani policy, friend or enemy?? Is it realistic that a country of 180 million, a nuclear power, the sixth largest nation in the world to behave like a emotional teenager???

Below is a editorial, a important question is being posed and answered and leads the way for us to rethink ourselves:

EDITORIAL: China anniversary and Pakistan

Pakistan has issued a postage stamp and a coin as a token of its participation in China’s celebrations of 60 years of independence. A Chinese dance troupe visiting Pakistan on the occasion has been watched with great enthusiasm in a country that is otherwise becoming rather strait-laced about entertainment in general and dancing in particular. When it comes to China, however, Pakistan is always ready to make ideological concessions. That’s a measure of the importance of China in Pakistan’s regional and global strategy.

The world has reacted differently. The West has expressed reservations about its internal order but admired its conduct in the global economy; it has even admitted that it was wrong in its assessment of China’s decision to shield itself against the economic crisis that hit the world economy this year. The vehemence of the objection to China’s re-valued currency has evaporated as China proves a buttress to the global economy with its continued high growth rate.

Threat perceptions too have been trained on the conduct of China. Its attitude towards Taiwan has been criticised, focusing on the hundreds of its missiles it is pointing towards the island it was to “reunify” with. But few in the West, and even in friendly countries like Pakistan, understand the concessions it has offered to the hostile Taiwanese capital. Southeast Asian economies are supposed to be under threat from China but will not join the West in seeing it as a threat.

Pakistan has to learn a lot from its best friend China but so far this process has not been allowed to start at the intellectual level. An understanding of China’s “wisdom” has to be gained to correctly grasp its conduct; intense emotion cannot substitute intellectual interpretation. China has territorial claims on India and a number of islands in the South China Sea but that has never meant that Beijing should deploy an unfriendly strategy against the concerned states. It has good relations with its traditional rival Russia and is doing good bilateral trade with India.

If pragmatism is the essence of statecraft then China has a few lessons that the world must learn. Pakistan above all needs to look closely at the policies adopted by China in the past years. When China objected to the American initiative in the Balkans against Serbia without reference to the UN Security Council, the Islamic world was puzzled that Beijing should allow the Serbs to go on killing the Muslims. But later when the same America walked into Iraq, the wisdom of China was confirmed even for the American public which eventually woke up to George Bush’s “cowboy” adventurism across the world.

Political scientists say China will eventually become “democratic” on the basis of the adoption of free market as its economic doctrine. Today China is the most “open-door” economy in the world, more even than the United States which follows Adam Smith more strictly than its partners in Europe. An “ideological” Pakistan specifically has to learn some lessons from this. First, democracy is of no use if writ of the state is not secure. In fact democracy helps in unhinging a state which has landed itself in trouble through policies of cross-border “trespass” called jihad.

As for China’s undiscriminating approach to other states in pursuit of energy resources, and the criticism that emanates against this policy from the West, the world has already grasped the “international order” presided over by the United States. If America can reach out to the dictators of the world in pursuit of its global strategy of dominance, why can’t China? The only difference is that China doesn’t spearhead its diplomacy with threats of military intervention. Its economic “pragmatism” therefore has to be understood.

Pakistan is an “emotionally engaged” friend of China. In some ways this quality ensures steadiness of response even when “ideological” events such as the Muslim rebellion in Xinjiang take place. But there is a great need to also to understand the Chinese denial of emotion in the conduct of foreign policy and therefore a constant injection of flexibility in it. It is true that there is a “civilisational” barrier between the two states, but there should be something to show for this steady half-a-century long relationship.



So what's important, that we love or like the US? No, rather that we behave in a way that best serves our interests - the interest of Pakistan and that of the US intersect in the elimination of the al-Qaeeda and Talib and to bring an end to Islamist insurgency so that we can create Jinnah's Pakistan -- But of course to Jamaatis Jinnah's Pakistan is "Napakistan", we will never forgive Jamaatis for that


.

 

[Vassnti]

muse explain why u have made this tread!! and dont give a bullshit answer like "they deserve it"
you are in bed with bush, obama and zionists so watch ur back.

Perhaps being new you do not understand proper behaviour, you might like to look at the number and quality of Muse's posts and delete this post of your owm violition before it is done for you.

Many may not always agree with Muse but the consitent quality of his/her contribution deserves respect.

 

[PAFAce]

muse explain why u have made this tread!! and dont give a bullshit answer like "they deserve it"
you are in bed with bush, obama and zionists so watch ur back.

Post reported.
You may disagree all you like with muse, but do not dare insult him again.

Many may not always agree with Muse but the consitent quality of his/her contribution deserves respect.

It never crossed my mind that muse could be a woman. But why not? Heck, MastanKhan could be a 20 year old brunette supermodel for all I know. In that case, I think I might just visit the US soon.