US attitude unacceptable - PM Gillani

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Sorry you were inconvenienced.

Any random checkpoints throughout our nation's capitol looking for terrorists? Get pulled from any cars and strip-searched without warning? Tailed by big guys wearing sunglasses? Spend any nights in an Alabama jail while your bonafides were validated?

Were I driving around the US in a vehicle with fake license plates something close to the above would have likely happened ( I am unaware of any US diplomatic staff being strip searched).

The fact of the matter is that so long as US diplomats drive around in cars without valid license plates, they will be (and should) subject to being pulled over, searched and validated.

The US embassy can negotiate with the GoP the provision of license plates that are valid but are not 'diplomatic plates', that are recorded in the system and therefore can be validated by police preventing the need to pull over vehicles with fake plates.

Beyond that, since you continuously harp about the 'danger' Americans, especially diplomats, are in Pakistan, they really have no need to be driving around town taking pictures and going on jaunts to Gwadar.

If there is a need for travel related to development activities the US is funding, that travel can be coordinated with the relevant government agency under whose purview the project falls, and travel can be done in the company of the relevant Pakistani officials, again avoiding the need for 'fake plates' and unnecessary travel in our 'extremely dangerous country'.

I know that WSJ reporter Matthew Rosenburg found your environment a bit burdensome and left Pakistan on pain of violent death.

Plenty of American journalists, American and non-American, continue to operate in Pakistan. That does not mean newspapers such as the nation should be careful in their accusations and reporting, but that 'Daniel Pearl deaths' remain the exception and not the norm, as do the murders of people with Turbans in the US.

 

[karan.1970]

I think the answer to Afghanistan's problem is simple: Don't mess with Pakistan.Sooner or later, Afghan daddies America and other ISAF countries are going to pack up and leave just imagine the retaliation from Pakistani side.You'll be in deep ****.

Dude.. Easier said than done. US is not going to make the same mistake twice. It wont allow pakistan to do another taliban in Afghanistan like last time around.

 

[S-2]

"Were I driving around the US in a vehicle with fake license plates something close to the above would have likely happened..."

As it would for myself. It's against the law.

"The fact of the matter is that so long as US diplomats drive around in cars without valid license plates, they will be (and should) subject to being pulled over, searched and validated."

Absolutely.

"The US embassy can negotiate with the GoP the provision of license plates that are valid but are not 'diplomatic plates', that are recorded in the system and therefore can be validated by police preventing the need to pull over vehicles with fake plates."

And you know that this "arrangement" hasn't been heretofore agreed how, exactly? My understanding is that these matters have already been agreed to as a protective measure.

If I'm correct, where's the disconnect? You or us? It would seem that either your security forces down where the rubber meets the road either don't have the means, do possess the means but don't care, or were specifically directed to harass in anycase.

Clearly stopping and even asking these officials to step from a vehicle where they can be seen by any and all is a danger, is it not?

I doubt that I'm incorrect and that we've sent our officials into your streets with bogus plates and weapons without prior discussions/consultations/coordination with the proper Pakistani security authorities. Security is a PARAMOUNT concern of ours in your country these days.

Reads like an easily avoidable prescription for disaster. Were this casual negligence by our security officials true it WOULD be emblematic of arrogance. I ain't buyin' the B.S.

"Beyond that, since you continuously harp about the 'danger' Americans, especially diplomats, are in Pakistan, they really have no need to be driving around town taking pictures and going on jaunts to Gwadar..."

What nonsense is this? Those in Gwadar were your citizens in the employee of our embassy. As to "driving around", our officials are on official business just like your assassinated generals driving to and from work in Rawalpindi or Islamabad.

Maybe your targeted generals have no need to be "driving around" also and can simply work from home?

"If there is a need for travel related to development activities the US is funding, that travel can be coordinated with the relevant government agency under whose purview the project falls, and travel can be done in the company of the relevant Pakistani officials, again avoiding the need for 'fake plates' and unnecessary travel in our 'extremely dangerous country'."

Why don't you simply ask us to leave and leave behind the ol' checkbook? Could you create any more impedence? Our daily work would require the prior coordination of each activity by each department of our embassy with its parallel department in the GoP.

Mind if we bring over a fifty or so more diplomats just to handle the daily coordination of logistics and security that this would require? Our staff has a HUGE number of disparate and unrelated responsibilities.

Shall we start "ride-sharing" projects to further ameliorate your impedence? Coordination for that?

"Plenty of American journalists, American and non-American, continue to operate in Pakistan."

Under great restriction as it is.

"That does not mean newspapers such as the nation should be careful in their accusations and reporting, but that 'Daniel Pearl deaths' remain the exception and not the norm, as do the murders of people with Turbans in the US..."

People wearing turbans and murdered in America might die for any variety of reasons/motives. Journalists die in Pakistan for very clear reasons. Any turban-wearing victims OUTTED by an American newspaper here in the states?

Matthew Rosenberg was specifically OUTTED by that POS rag posing as a newspaper-NATION. Beyond irrresponsible, that's damned near a MURDER conspiracy in Pakistan to accuse an American reporter of being a C.I.A./Mossad agent.

Really, truly pathetic.

Thanks.

 

[S-2]

"I dislike blame games"

So do I. Shall we allow bygones of the past to dissipate?

"...and want to look towards a solution in which ... the ultimate aim is to improve the conditions of Afghanistan and Pakistan"

That's being done. KL reflects that there's considerably more going on than rehashing the past.

"i have to say that i too am quite disappointed by such unilateral views which utterly regard Pakistan as the root of the problem..."

Who would profess this historical responsibility/blame to be solely Pakistan's?

"without looking into your own backyards...without giving an iota of attention to what you all have contributed to in this unfolding chaos...you simply pin blame on Pakistan..."

Why do I sense victimization coming?

"I am of the generation which was raised in the era of the Afghan war...do not think that i have forgotten what was the Afghan war and who did what..."

I was a serving officer in that time. One of my best friends took three six-week trips into Afghanistan with the mujahideen. I don't think I've forgotten too much. Lester Grau's studies sit very near my bed.

"In an ideal world...Soviet Union should have held its horses, USA should have stayed the hell out of Afghanistan...Pakistan should have left it alone as internal matter...Hundreds of Afghan leaders should not have sought the help of Pakistan and other countries for all sorts of aids and help in this civil war...did they refuse help, aid, weapons?"

Irrelevant.

"You think all of help was paid by U.N. USA and no impact was there on our country, our resources, our people?"

Are you pleading for sympathy or insulting the intelligence of those perfectly aware that even today a refugee legacy from that past still exists on your lands?

"The refugees were generously helped by most Pakistanis, our families contributed their money and lots of goods were donated to the affected families...we suffered due to the smuggling mafia which became very strong in Pakistan and shifted many of its operations here from Afghanistan...we suffered from the weapons which were brought into this region...the organized crime including gang robbery and especially abductions soared during this period...

We had a huge cost to pay for which i do not seek monetary compensation"

Sacrifices are made in war. Those refugees were representatives of your first line of defense. You were OUR second line of defense. Our objectives were to secure Pakistan from the Soviets, prevent their geo-strategic access to the Persian gulf, and bleed them in the interim.

"for...however i do feel anger when such insulting oversimplifications are made of the many reasons than my brethren helped the Afghans..."

Who would insult your nation, All-Green?

"we did it out of spirit and faith"

And you were the only who possessed a vision of altruism and nobility to your efforts? Others there, including America, were honoring THEIR spirit, faith, and political credos.

"...we did not foresee the terrible outcome of all of this war..."

Who did? Not America. We left at its conclusion, All-Green, because we'd held no historical interests to the area. Had we made clear our intention to stay, I STRONGLY doubt the Soviet Union would have acceded to America's presence along the borders of its southern socialist republics while simultaneously agreeing to leave Afghanistan.

I also strongly suspect that all who rail at our leaving today would have instead railed at our neo-imperialist ambitions.

"...it was our failing but not ours alone...do not blame only my country for all of this."

Well, if you seriously wish to discuss this matter then let me ask why nobody from your side of the fence ever sees the responsibility of the PRC or Great Britain to any of this? The drumbeat is AMERICA abandoned you.

I've already stated my views as to why we didn't stay and, I agree, we did ABANDON you but these are separate issues from one another. Our abandonment of Pakistan was mandated by our laws in light of your pursuit of nuclear weapons.

You say duplicity and that you were used. I say you were protected by all and that Pakistan was well aware that your seperate agenda of a nuclear capability would lead to the Pressler amendment eventually rearing its head.

Pakistan had ample warning of the consequences and made a strategic calculation/choice. From that came the predictable, calculated, and expected fall-out.

"So majority of Afghans hate Pakistan?"

Please stay away from polemics of "hate" and I shall try to do the same. In the meantime, avail yourself of the latest polling data and the questions specifically relating to Pakistan's role in the war, and the supporting methodology.

Also, if in vehement disagreement with the findings, identify the reasons/objections and your alternative data and methodology-

ABC/BBC/ARD Afghanistan Poll 2010

ABC/BBC/ARD Afghanistan Poll-Note On Methodology 2010

I've a friend who is an Army major at the Pentagon and just coming off a three year tour teaching ECON at the U.S.M.A. in West Point. He's a statistical geek whom A.M. knows reasonably well. I'll forward the same to him for his assessment as I'm interested in his views of the validity of such.

"The ordinary Pakistanis and even the governments have always tried to help the Afghans"

Others, including America, feel the same about their assistance to Afghanistan but I'd be wrong to suggest that our "help", well-intentioned and even appropriate, hasn't created great pain amidst the friction of war.

We've innocent afghan blood on our hands despite or because of our efforts. Not remotely close to that of the Soviets but the tragedies caused by our mistakes and miscalculations are nonetheless a part of the Afghan melieu and ongoing narrative. The attendant hyperbole from the mouth of Karzai and others is as unfair as hearing similar complaints from YOUR officials but the impact is real nonetheless.

"...i have seen them become a very large part of Pakistani society...i cannot believe this but if it is the truth then it shall be more of Afghanistan's loss if they identify Pakistan as the cause of all their misery..."

Why a loss more so to one side than the other?

"It was the Afghans who fought against their pro soviet government in a civil war in which USA was very heavily involved not just Pakistan ...no way could the soviets have been defeated had this been just an external movement...most of the world knows this for a fact..."

No way that the mujahideen could be defeated either so long as they were afforded Pakistani sanctuary. An insurgency that isn't measurably and tangibly LOSING is, ipso facto, WINNING.

"If we always go back to the perception that Pakistan is the daddy of Taliban then USA is the grand daddy of all extremism in this region..."

America? Maybe but you haven't justified such. Instead, you've simply made an unsubstantiated leap of logic. I might easily contend under your premise that the Soviet Union is the so-called "grand daddy", no?

We can't predict what might have been had the Soviets stayed on their side of the border but, clearly, we can evaluate the consequences reasonably well of them choosing not to do so. I say "choosing" but they, too, had security and political imperatives driving their actions.

"...if this is the crude oversimplification that is always attached to Pakistan then what else can i conclude about USA?"

You can argue to me that the ISI didn't have a relationship with Hekmatyar during the Afghan Civil War (not to be confused with the Afghan-Soviet War). Then you can argue with me that your government's interest in opening trade routes from Quetta to Turkmenistan was non-existent and that your trucking cartels didn't pressure Benazir Bhutto to find a more viable alternative in an area where Hekmatyar had negligible influence (Afghanistan's south).

Finally, you could dispute that Bhutto's government found a better solution to achieving their objectives in the emerging taliban movement of Oruzgan/Kandahar in 1994 than at the hand of Hekmatyar.

That is the Ahmed Rashid narrative of matters and one to which I largely subscribe. It rings plausibly, acccounts for the relationship of Hekmatyar to your government and explains his diminishment and the subsequent taliban rise.

"What moral high ground then i attach to USA when i am preached to about how immoral and evil my own country and its people were towards Afghans?"

Trace your premise in light of my contentions, argue successfully against them, and I'll discuss moral culpability with you. I won't accept your conclusion until I accept your supporting evidence.

"How simple it is to blame Pakistan which has suffered second only to Afghanistan..."

It is simple and, I believe, accurate to apportion blame to Pakistan

"...how easy to start your history from only when Mullah Omar had already gained control of most of Afghanistan and Pakistan government recognized them..."

I carry a history degree and grew up in that period of time. Further, nothing I've offered to you in the past nor now indicates a lack of awareness about the backdrop to this war. Your recognition of the taliban government of Afghanistan in 1996 is just one of the marks on this particular time-line.

"...instead we should have recognized the hundreds of warlords as a single government...hundreds of times....yes?"

It wasn't likely a zero-sum choice of one at the expense of the other. Further, you fail to acknowledge the weight of scale already visible during the Afghan-Soviet war among the Peshawar Seven. Not all mujahideen were liaisoned with equal favor by the ISI operatives.

The conditions leading to Pakistan's estrangement with the other ethnic elements of Afghan society had already fallen well into place.

"We could not have ignored the Taliban when they had unified government in most of Afghanistan..."

As I suggest, it's hardly as though this process was played out to such a conclusion without your awareness nor involvement. Pakistan didn't simply awaken from a deep slumber in 1996 to find a taliban government in power in Afghanistan. There were decisions made by Pakistan and, possibly, the KSA which facilitated this reality.

"...when the US and its allies landed in Afghanistan and actively supported the Northern Alliance they cared little for the moral standing of the ranks of Northen Alliance..."

Moral standing in whose eyes? We valued the general moral character of Ahmed Shah Massoud. Not remotely without sin but, relative to his peers (including Hekmatyar), he was damned near saintly. Sadly, the rug got pulled out from underneath us one day before we even realized there was a slight 9/11 problem looming on our horizon.

"...but Pakistan was supposed to see whether the Taliban were good enough to merit our attention or not, despite their solid control of Afghanistan which was unprecedented since the Afghan war started..."

Your assessment of their value, as I indicated above, came well before they found themselves in power. Your transfer of allegiance from Hekmatyar to the taliban is the primary impetus behind the taliban's ascension to power.

"...we have had example of Saudi Arabia which had a similar government style as that of Taliban so it was not like we were condemning Afghans to hell..."

Example? What example? A royal example would have made a case for Zahir Shah. OTOH, a wahabbist/salafist example WAS a condemnation of the afghans to hell or did I miss something? Do you now diminish their heinous "governance" as adequate for afghans then and, again, now? I hope not because your own citizens have decisively rejected such in SWAT/Buner.

Probably o.k. for your citizens in FATAville though? Doesn't seem to be the case so let me ask where the demarcation exists that makes the taliban acceptable for afghans but not your mother and sisters?

"...no one can impose a foreign government in Afghanistan... a lesson learnt by Soviets..."

You've just finished telling me how the Soviets were only defeated from their ambitions in Afghanistan because of the accumulated weight of nations against them, no?

What government is trying to be imposed on Afghans now from your tribal lands? Care to speculate on its chances for success had sanctuary for its leadership not existed? I think very poor and that Afghanistan, despite endemic issues of corruption and crime, would be much further along the path of progress were it not for an externally-directed insurgency.

and one which should be realized by all.

"...I guess we are the omnipotent presence in the world because in a country like Afghanistan we managed to impose our toadies on such a nation within just 4 years..."

You, by physical proximity, internal political and military coherance, and unity of vision, carried more weight than any others of whom I can imagine. Iran certainly had their preoccupation with Iraq between 1980-1988 so I don't see how the shia mullahs were prepared to contest you.

Who else? The Soviets? They tried while they could be the sand was slipping beneath their feet in the late 80s and very early 90s and then they were done.

"...against the collective will of all its people who were all in love with their ideal ruling council of warlords?"

The results of your success were laid before your eyes between 1996-2001. Are you satisfied with your efforts? Evidently YES despite your dissatisfaction having the same imposed on you in SWAT/Buner this year and now SWA with their TTP kin.

Do you wish for the same again?

"...On the other hand the entire world is struggling to oust the same lackies and foreign invaders who have no support from the locals and just resort to hit and run from Pakistan..."

Nice of you to admit this fundamental abridgement of your sovereign obligations.

"...how is it possible that still we hear complaints of Taliban and talks of failed strategy and more boots on the ground..."

The rest of the world failed to make allowance for an ally whom was less-than-allied by providing our enemy with sanctuary from which the ousted taliban government now makes war.

You and I both know that even in the absence of such, Afghanistan's endemic issues were profound and would take HUGE effort to overcome. This is a country ON ITS AZZ like few others before or since.

"...I am quite positive that there is a lot more to Taliban than Pakistan...but then i guess i have been indocrtinated not to sift out the truth...being Pakistani and all."

You do have something of (pardon me) your own cross to bear WRT to acknowledgements. Somewhat selective, IMV. So far, you've offered none of your own admissions besides the taliban's high moral turpitude (disproved by their heavy opium involvement both then and now).

I read much about Karzai's brother and his involvement with both drugs and their government. Are you so much better?

Parcel Bomb Injures MNA, Three Relatives-DAWN June 6, 2009

Might wish to look into this gent for a taste of the same.

"If Taliban never had and still do not have any support in Afghanistan then i cannot ever imagine them stirring so much trouble with a huge war being waged against them..."

External sanctuary is the lifeblood of any insurgency. Americans know this lesson well from Vietnam and the Afghan-Soviet War.

"I guess they are no more a trouble since everyone hates them and there is no support for them..."

Aside from Pakistan or do you not read the comments made here by too many of your own peers?

"...if so then no more need to push Pakistan..."

See above. "Push"? We'll be pushing you into our arms or war against us eventually. One or the other seem the foreordained path of this conumdrum.

"...i guess you guys have it all figured out and sorted out and it is just a matter of time..."

I'd guess us guys have been forthright in reassessing failure at least twice this year alone-last spring and this fall.

You? Or do you have nothing to offer in introspective reassessment but snide asides that show little remorse for your own responsibilties?

"no guerilla movement can succeed without local support when faced with a focused machine of war and with so much disparity in firepower..."

This is an externally-directed insurgency that's relying upon sanctuary, wahabbist/salafist gulf money, and opium revenues that come from coercing farmers in those reaches of their traditional lands. You've had ample opportunity to review the UNODC data and are well aware that the British and Canadians have, until this year, provided inadequate forces to control the vast reaches of Kandahar and Helmand provinces.

As to firepower, I'm unsure about its application by us but UNAMA contends that over 2400 afghans died by violent means last year and that the taliban had a direct responsibility for over 1600 of them while NATO/ISAF killed less than 600.

"When i talk about talking to them i propose this as a viable, logical strategy. I am saying this that eventually this will make things better as it did for us in Swat..."

Great. Do so on your own lands...yet again. The evidence is in on these fcuks and I'm ASTOUNDED by your contention. I'm equally ASTOUNDED by your complete lack of understanding about the taliban's view of such.

Don't you READ? Omar has made clear his complete willingness to "talk" after ISAF has departed. Not before. Given his personal legacy and abhorrance of any democratic process, you can be assured that there'll be very little talking and one damnably large civil war...again.

Stunning what you'll foist on the afghans but not accept for your own sisters and mothers. For shame given all you've seen. Seriously.

"...i guess all are welcome to form their opinion..."

Mine is formed about the taliban, A.Q., Hekmatyar, Haqqani, Maulvi Nazir, and Hafez Gul Bahadur. You seem to need further lessons of pain administered like that young lady we all saw last spring in SWAT.

Thanks but, no thanks.

Hope you read those polls and reconsider your thoughts in light of that data. Hope you provide better if in disagreement. Other than that, I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt that Afghans aren't overwhelmed with Pakistan's role in all of this but you may require some reassessment of your role vis-a-vis your neighbors.

Thanks.

 

[Afghan Eagle]

I think I'd rather hear it from a Pashtun than a Kazakh/Indian pretending to speak for others.

I totally agree with Unity, i am a Pashtun from the southern province of Paktia.So STOP using the Pashtun card here.

Now back to the discussion, i think Afghans in general have been quite happy with the treatment they received during their stay in Pakistan.

I believe their views have changed due to the increase in terrorist attacks which have killed thousands of civilians perpetrated by the Afghan Taliban and the sanctuaries they have inside Pakistan, people hate the Pakistani gov now coz they see them as an active supporter of these terrorist groups like Haqqani and MO.It does include the Pashtuns among other ethnic groups, especially the new generation.

 

[Afghan Eagle]

Afghan daddies America and other ISAF countries are going to pack up and leave just imagine the retaliation from Pakistani side.You'll be in deep ****.

We wont need direct help of NATO forces in Afghanistan by 2013.Its not like we want them to stay there forever, Afghan security forces have improved alot during the past 8 years, any retaliation will be dealt with accordingly




Afghan forces will be ready to take over from NATO by 2013

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"The US embassy can negotiate with the GoP the provision of license plates that are valid but are not 'diplomatic plates', that are recorded in the system and therefore can be validated by police preventing the need to pull over vehicles with fake plates."

And you know that this "arrangement" hasn't been heretofore agreed how, exactly? My understanding is that these matters have already been agreed to as a protective measure.

If I'm correct, where's the disconnect? You or us? It would seem that either your security forces down where the rubber meets the road either don't have the means, do possess the means but don't care, or were specifically directed to harass in anycase.

Clearly stopping and even asking these officials to step from a vehicle where they can be seen by any and all is a danger, is it not?

I disagree that it is a danger, and they should be made to step out and searched until identities are validated, no weapons either.

The only word on this 'agreement' has been from Patterson, and her statement implied that the plates would be completely fake, not merely registered non-diplomatic plates. If you can provide more information one way or the other we can go from there, otherwise the treatment meted out is completely valid.

Reads like an easily avoidable prescription for disaster. Were this casual negligence by our security officials true it WOULD be emblematic of arrogance. I ain't buyin' the B.S.

The BS is that they are driving around Lahore, Islamabad and other cities, with weapons and cameras in some cases at least, which has nothing to do with the US effort to fund development schemes. AFAIK the US has only recently announced upto $1 billion funding for various power projects - driving around Lahore and Islamabad in vehicles with fake license plates in such a 'dangerous country' has nothing to do with that funding effort and is 'casual negligence' given the, uh, extreme danger to Americans in Pakistan.

What nonsense is this? Those in Gwadar were your citizens in the employee of our embassy.

Spies, scouts possibly?

As to "driving around", our officials are on official business just like your assassinated generals driving to and from work in Rawalpindi or Islamabad.

Maybe your targeted generals have no need to be "driving around" also and can simply work from home?


"If there is a need for travel related to development activities the US is funding, that travel can be coordinated with the relevant government agency under whose purview the project falls, and travel can be done in the company of the relevant Pakistani officials, again avoiding the need for 'fake plates' and unnecessary travel in our 'extremely dangerous country'."

Why don't you simply ask us to leave and leave behind the ol' checkbook? Could you create any more impedence? Our daily work would require the prior coordination of each activity by each department of our embassy with its parallel department in the GoP.

Mind if we bring over a fifty or so more diplomats just to handle the daily coordination of logistics and security that this would require? Our staff has a HUGE number of disparate and unrelated responsibilities.

Shall we start "ride-sharing" projects to further ameliorate your impedence? Coordination for that?

The official business of your officials is issuing visas and coordinating with Pakistani officials on the projects that need to be funded, not driving around pretending to be gun touting Jason Bourne's. If travel needs to be done with respect to these projects then it should be coordinated with Pakistani officials and departments - whether you like that or not is none of our concern. A foreign investor in the US is subject to following all US government regulations and processes, why should the US government be given an exemption in Pakistan? Our regulations and our requirements. We agreed that the US would fund development projects and ensure accountability of funds. Neither of the above requires US diplomats be given carte blanche to go wherever they please given the current dynamics in Pakistan..

And since most power projects in Pakistan the US is investing in are run by the Pakistani government, there is no merit to the argument that the US should avoid coordination with GoP officials.

You don't bring over staff to regulate security, we do that, and your officials should coordinate their movements with Pakistani officials. If all this movement by US diplomats is related to US investment, then it would in fact be far more efficient to 'ride share' and ensure that the Pakistani side is aware of US requirements in terms of approving funding for various projects and monitoring progress.

"Plenty of American journalists, American and non-American, continue to operate in Pakistan."

Under great restriction as it is.

We are at war, the restrictions are our prerogative, and we don't trust the West, in case that was not obvious.

"That does not mean newspapers such as the nation should be careful in their accusations and reporting, but that 'Daniel Pearl deaths' remain the exception and not the norm, as do the murders of people with Turbans in the US..."

People wearing turbans and murdered in America might die for any variety of reasons/motives

Journalists die in Pakistan for very clear reasons. Any turban-wearing victims OUTTED by an American newspaper here in the states?

The ones I am referring to were killed and/or assaulted for being taken for Muslims, inaccurate generalization in a few cases since the victims were Sikhs, and no one needed to 'out them', nor has a journalist in Pakistan been killed after being 'outed by the Nation' - you are assuming that is what would have happened, and linking it to Pearl's murder which had nothing to do with him being 'outed' in the local press.

Matthew Rosenberg was specifically OUTTED by that POS rag posing as a newspaper-NATION. Beyond irrresponsible, that's damned near a MURDER conspiracy in Pakistan to accuse an American reporter of being a C.I.A./Mossad agent.

While I disagree with a newspaper reporting a story based on speculation, your reaction is an extreme one - as I pointed out, journalists have not been killed after being 'outed', nor does the Nation's story reflect a 'murder conspiracy' in terms of the implications of the story.

 

[S-2]

"...you could have done better than giving me a childish reply."

Not really. That's about the extent of the demonstrated intellect on display.

Do some post research if you've doubts.

Thanks.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

, people hate the Pakistani gov now coz they see them as an active supporter of these terrorist groups like Haqqani and MO.It does include the Pashtuns among other ethnic groups, especially the new generation.

These people would be delusional and liars then, not unlike some in the US administration, since there is no evidence that Pakistan is supporting Haqqani or others.

And Afghanistan and NATO need to control its North Eastern Provinces, where Pakistan is being attacked from by Pakistani Taliban leaders such as Faqir Mohammed of Bajaur and Mullah Fazlullah of Swat, assisted by an Afghan Taliban commander called Qari Ziaur Rehman.

P.S: My question on what exactly the statements of Afghan officials on the Durand line imply is an open one to all Afghans. You chose to avoid it so I'll ask you directly what do you think of the statements of the Afghan leadership quoted in my earlier post?

 

[TaimiKhan]

I totally agree with Unity, i am a Pashtun from the southern province of Paktia.So STOP using the Pashtun card here.

Now back to the discussion, i think Afghans in general have been quite happy with the treatment they received during their stay in Pakistan.

I believe their views have changed due to the increase in terrorist attacks which have killed thousands of civilians perpetrated by the Afghan Taliban and the sanctuaries they have inside Pakistan, people hate the Pakistani gov now coz they see them as an active supporter of these terrorist groups like Haqqani and MO.It does include the Pashtuns among other ethnic groups, especially the new generation.

Well our perception got changed way before in the 80s when the Afghan KHAD with the help of their masters KGB were bombing Pakistan and killed thousands at that time alone. But still we kept giving refuge to Afghans inside Pakistan even with such hostility being shown towards us by Afghan nationals and slap after slap given to us for our hospitality.

And if you worry about the sanctuaries inside Pakistan, kindly open up your eyes and see the sanctuaries on your side of the border too where Afghan Taliban and Pakistani based Taliban enjoy free roaming facility.

Do you know when the Pakistan based TTP guys were thrown out of Bajaur Agency, where did they go ??? They went into Nuristan Province of Afghanistan, where your occupiers or should i say masters for you, the US forces emptied the borders, emptied their bases and Taliban have one full province to their name where even a local Afghan Warlord made Camp for Internally Displaced Terrorists and gave these IDTs a safe heaven from where they have started to infiltrate again into Pakistan and attacking the security forces and govt installations & civilians inside Pakistan.

So before pointing fingers at others, do see some of the fingers point at your own self too.

Clean up your mess where 80% area is in Afghan Taliban hands, and this 80% is way beyond the Pak-Afghan Border, it borders Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, thousands of miles away from the sanctuaries along our border.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

^^^ I know - you never hear Afghans show any remorse for the actions of their nation and government against Pakistan and its continued irredentist ambitions. They whine about 'Pakistan's foreign policy' while continuing to harp about the Durand line and how 'Pashtun nationalism and a desire for Pashtunistan' is still alive amongst Pakistani Pashtun.

If the Afghans miss the NWFP so much, they are welcome to become part of the Pakistani Federation.

 

[jeypore]

"I am surprised that you are following a liberal language!! I hope political truthness has not gotten to you because there is only one type!!!"

Expand on these thoughts in a P.M. if you wouldn't mind. I'm not entirely certain that I understand you.

Thanks.

First let me rephrase the sentence that I responded to you:

My preference? Any man arriving at an airport-caucasian, christian, from Sweden and his wife-blond, blue-eyed should be directed with their luggage to separate rooms.

Get naked. Open all of your luggage. Strip-searched and luggage inspected right in front of you. From there your luggage moves to the plane and you move to a waiting area-bar, toiletries, shopping...but secured externally.

And when reading this, I asked a question of Why? Why Should a Swedish man and Wife have to be stripe search, when we clearly know the mentallity of people that is planning to blow up any airplane or a building. I am not a conservative, but a libetarian....

As Mr. Savage says (not a follower, infact he is to far right) "Not all Muslims are terrorist, but all terrorist are Muslims." To make it simply put, All Muslims should follow the regiment that is priscribed by you above. And there is a greater reasoning behind this because, it is afterall, true fight lies in the ideology.

Secondly, Mr S-2 what is going to ruin this country or is happening is POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, Why are we as a nation so afraid to say this is the true Problem (meaing Political correctness).

PS. I know your counter attack, so do not bring the Shoe Bomber!!!

Thanks!!!

 

[S-2]

"...they should be made to step out and searched until identities are validated, no weapons either."

Definitely not if prior protocol has been established between the host country and the U.S. Dept. of State Bureau of Diplomatic Security.

Here's the official press release from our embassy on the Gwadar incident-

U.S. Dept. Of State-Islamabad Embassy Press Release January 7, 2010

"The official business of your officials is issuing visas and coordinating with Pakistani officials on the projects that need to be funded, not driving around pretending to be gun touting Jason Bourne's."

OTOH, you're in no position to know from within my country as a student (or recent grad?) what the mission responsibilities are for our diplomats in YOUR country. You're out of the loop with no need to know.

In general, though, you are wrong, as an American embassy houses far more responsibilities and obligations than simply consular services issuing visas to the likes of yourself.

U.S Embassy Pakistan Departments

Please note the qualifier-

"Below is a listing of some departments and offices of the United States Embassy"

I don't see Treasury, USAid, Dept. of Ag., DEA, C.I.A, nor our military attache offices. They're there though, aren't they?

"And since most power projects in Pakistan the US is investing in are run by the Pakistani government, there is no merit to the argument that the US should avoid coordination with GoP officials."

Look at the list above. My apologies for excluding DoE from that list but there's far more than power projects going on.

"You don't bring over staff to regulate security..."

Actually we do-Bureau of Diplomatic Security Services. They actually have visas issued by Pakistan.

Bureau Of Diplomatic Security

"A foreign investor in the US is subject to following all US government regulations and processes, why should the US government be given an exemption in Pakistan?"

Please don't ask why immunity is granted to diplomatic communities. That's too transparently revealing of base ignorance, particularly when attempting comparison to investors from the private sector.

"We are at war, the restrictions are our prerogative, and we don't trust the West, in case that was not obvious."

Odd...so are we. I wonder if my government knows who America's real enemy is yet?

If you don't trust us, take your greedy and hypocritical hands out of our pockets, please? Send us home. Blow up the PREDATORS you deny are sitting on your airfields. Call in your proxies to bomb us out.

"...nor has a journalist in Pakistan been killed after being 'outed by the Nation'"

No, thank God. WSJ couldn't afford to have a second murdered reporter on their hands. They got him out right smart quick. You act as though it's clear he'd been safe in any case when it's patently clear he wasn't at all safe. Not worth the chance to think he'd been safe there when clearly NATION intended nothing but malevolence.

Have you given them a medal yet for their good work and first-rate investigative skills?

Well, now he works from home.

"...your reaction is an extreme one..."

Not at all. You wrote that Pakistan is at war. Isn't that extreme?

The protocols are agreed unless you'd like to call Anne Patterson a liar. If so, that'd be a gross error in character. She is a career professional and one of our best if you've bothered to check her C.V.

Wikipedia Anne Patterson

Implementation seems a problem and reflects, like visas, the shelving of such after agreement-a black hole. However please bite the hand that feeds you if your nat'l self-esteem needs such-the more, the better from my perspective.

Ah well, small matter and just another hole in the tent.

I'm sure Patterson is pizzed. I KNOW Levin is. I heard Holbrooke got an earful at breakfast today and replied to some of your assemblymen in kind.

Good stuff.

Thanks.

 

[S-2]

Thanks for your reply.

"Not all Muslims are terrorist, but all terrorist are Muslims."

I wouldn't agree at all. Tim McVeigh wasn't muslim. Mexican narco-terrorists aren't muslim. Sendero Luminoso aren't muslim. FARC, in Columbia, aren't muslim. ETA, the Basque group, aren't muslim.

There's enough there to make my case that the easiest way to proceed is to assume that flying and entry to a foreign nation remains a privilege and that any who wish so will submit to the imposed security requirements.

In the end, if you've nothing to hide (literally), you've nothing to fear. If the system is required for all, the resentment from some will diminish and the efficiency associated with the security will improve over time.

That's my hope anyway.

Thanks.

 

[Creder]

But S-2 what about people like me who are way too good looking to be scanned by the body scanners and that too free of charge ?

But in all seriousness, while this is a matter of national security and no matter what anyone says shouldn't influence state's decsion. But considering this particular situation singling out these countries is discrimination. Its not so much about the checking at the airport, its more about the welcome message your giving to people who are coming to this country