US & Pakistan Dispute and Tensions over Haqqani group
- Thread starter Respect4Respect01
- Start date
DV RULES
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 4,078
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
US/NATO are now coming to hit Haqqani network seriously for shifting WOT from Afghanistan. Beside this story there is slight signal from ISAF commander that they are ready to take action against TTP in Afghanistan so let’s see where and how these stories develop.
Luftwaffe
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 9,544
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
Evidence present the hard copy proof acceptable internationally that is verifiable and can take Pakistan to International Criminal Court if not no believing.
---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:43 PM ----------
Can we apply the same theory with respect to RAW's activities from Afghanistan in Pakistan? If that is evidence,this is also evidence.
Yes, we have shown the proof of weapons and men and the recent trained men in hindustan to destabilize Karachi.
Show us a single Pakistani Army man you accuse of in Afghanistan.
Areesh
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2010
- Messages
- 45,157
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Just like Haqqanis have had their picnic spot in North Waziristan. So I guess thats even
Picnic spot? Are you serious?
Facepalm.
Areesh
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2010
- Messages
- 45,157
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Indian have lost their sense to make sense due to multiple reason which can't be discussed on this thread.
We don't sympathize with them nor wish them a quick recuperation.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Refer to my post # 22 and compare with this Editorial below:
EDITORIAL: Main sticking point
Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani met on the sidelines of the Nato conference in Seville, Spain for the first time after the Abbottabad unilateral US raid that killed Osama bin Laden but the encounter does not seem to have done much to close the gap between the two sides. Pakistan and the US, though ostensibly allies in the struggle against terrorism, have of late been more estranged than allies. However, it would be a mistake to see this admittedly under strain relationship in black and white terms. The grey areas are considerable, leading to the perception that the whole situation surrounding the relationship is both complicated and contradictory. Making sense of things therefore is not free of risk; nevertheless, here goes.
Admiral Mullen once again stressed to General Kayani the imperative of launching a military offensive to take out the safe havens of the Haqqani network in North Waziristan. The network is widely believed to have been responsible for the attack on the US embassy and Nato headquarters in Kabul the other day. This would appear to be of a piece with the pattern of such attacks in the Afghan capital for some time. Newly inducted Defence Secretary Leon Panetta, fresh from his bruising relationship with the ISI as head of the CIA, issued a blustering warning to Pakistan the other day that if it did not act against the Haqqani network, the US would do all it had to to protect its soldiers in Afghanistan. Subsequently, the State Department attempted to diplomatically paper over the most abrasive part of Mr Panetta’s remarks, but the damage seems already to have been done.
Despite all this, General Kayani steadfastly stuck to his guns and argued that apart from capacity constraints (i.e. the impossibility of shifting troops from the eastern border to reinforce the forces on the western border), Pakistan had the right to decide such matters in its own national interests and according to the wishes of its people. This line has not served to convince the Americans in the past, and is unlikely to go down well now. The eastern border deployment reflects the military’s Indo-centric defence posture, while the ‘wishes’ of the people of Pakistan in this regard remain an unknown factor, despite the efforts of many in the media to convince us to the contrary while advocating a position that appears to strengthen the military’s case.
In an interesting sideshow, General Kayani said in an interview in Seville that he doubted the 2014 US-Nato withdrawal deadline. Because the training and raising of the Afghan security forces is still beset with many problems, including desertions, suspect loyalties, etc, and now questions about their capacity to handle a post-withdrawal Afghanistan as witnessed in the Kabul attack referred to above, General Kayani suggested that the deadline could be reviewed in the light of ground realities. He did also mention that the US-Pakistan relationship was “...good...improving”.
Meanwhile back on the ranch, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani petulantly struck out at the US to “do more” itself instead of further pressurising Pakistan, which had contributed and sacrificed a lot in the struggle against terrorism. It is being widely speculated in the media that the PM cancelled his scheduled trip to the UN session not because his heart bleeds for the flood victims so much as the fact that our foreign office was unable to get him an audience with US President Barack Obama or other high American officials on the sidelines of the UN moot. Panetta’s fulminations too are said to have persuaded the PM, on FO advice, that this was not the best time to go. We also had the second meeting of the Pakistan-Afghanistan Joint Peace Commission in Islamabad. Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir and Afghan Deputy Foreign Minister Jaweed Lodin announced a blueprint of cooperation against terrorism and extremism. While Lodin diplomatically turned a question about the reported contacts between the US and Afghan Taliban into the acceptable conduit of an eventual single peace process, he was accosted by other, more difficult questions about the cross-border raids into Pakistan from Afghan soil. Although Lodin extended a promise of help and cooperation in this regard, he could not resist a dig at the similar ‘traffic’ into Afghanistan from Pakistan over decades, only saving the day by saying terrorism by its very nature could turn in unpredictable directions.
EDITORIAL: Main sticking point
Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani met on the sidelines of the Nato conference in Seville, Spain for the first time after the Abbottabad unilateral US raid that killed Osama bin Laden but the encounter does not seem to have done much to close the gap between the two sides. Pakistan and the US, though ostensibly allies in the struggle against terrorism, have of late been more estranged than allies. However, it would be a mistake to see this admittedly under strain relationship in black and white terms. The grey areas are considerable, leading to the perception that the whole situation surrounding the relationship is both complicated and contradictory. Making sense of things therefore is not free of risk; nevertheless, here goes.
Admiral Mullen once again stressed to General Kayani the imperative of launching a military offensive to take out the safe havens of the Haqqani network in North Waziristan. The network is widely believed to have been responsible for the attack on the US embassy and Nato headquarters in Kabul the other day. This would appear to be of a piece with the pattern of such attacks in the Afghan capital for some time. Newly inducted Defence Secretary Leon Panetta, fresh from his bruising relationship with the ISI as head of the CIA, issued a blustering warning to Pakistan the other day that if it did not act against the Haqqani network, the US would do all it had to to protect its soldiers in Afghanistan. Subsequently, the State Department attempted to diplomatically paper over the most abrasive part of Mr Panetta’s remarks, but the damage seems already to have been done.
Despite all this, General Kayani steadfastly stuck to his guns and argued that apart from capacity constraints (i.e. the impossibility of shifting troops from the eastern border to reinforce the forces on the western border), Pakistan had the right to decide such matters in its own national interests and according to the wishes of its people. This line has not served to convince the Americans in the past, and is unlikely to go down well now. The eastern border deployment reflects the military’s Indo-centric defence posture, while the ‘wishes’ of the people of Pakistan in this regard remain an unknown factor, despite the efforts of many in the media to convince us to the contrary while advocating a position that appears to strengthen the military’s case.
In an interesting sideshow, General Kayani said in an interview in Seville that he doubted the 2014 US-Nato withdrawal deadline. Because the training and raising of the Afghan security forces is still beset with many problems, including desertions, suspect loyalties, etc, and now questions about their capacity to handle a post-withdrawal Afghanistan as witnessed in the Kabul attack referred to above, General Kayani suggested that the deadline could be reviewed in the light of ground realities. He did also mention that the US-Pakistan relationship was “...good...improving”.
Meanwhile back on the ranch, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani petulantly struck out at the US to “do more” itself instead of further pressurising Pakistan, which had contributed and sacrificed a lot in the struggle against terrorism. It is being widely speculated in the media that the PM cancelled his scheduled trip to the UN session not because his heart bleeds for the flood victims so much as the fact that our foreign office was unable to get him an audience with US President Barack Obama or other high American officials on the sidelines of the UN moot. Panetta’s fulminations too are said to have persuaded the PM, on FO advice, that this was not the best time to go. We also had the second meeting of the Pakistan-Afghanistan Joint Peace Commission in Islamabad. Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir and Afghan Deputy Foreign Minister Jaweed Lodin announced a blueprint of cooperation against terrorism and extremism. While Lodin diplomatically turned a question about the reported contacts between the US and Afghan Taliban into the acceptable conduit of an eventual single peace process, he was accosted by other, more difficult questions about the cross-border raids into Pakistan from Afghan soil. Although Lodin extended a promise of help and cooperation in this regard, he could not resist a dig at the similar ‘traffic’ into Afghanistan from Pakistan over decades, only saving the day by saying terrorism by its very nature could turn in unpredictable directions.
Just like Haqqanis have had their picnic spot in North Waziristan. So I guess thats even
You missed my point. Your fellow bharati must also admit that NATO support terrorists if he's going to be consistent.
DV RULES
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 4,078
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
On this point their tongue may not work, there are issues related to NATO participation in border attacks so why this hysteria from US government? shameful behaviour.
BATMAN
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 29,895
- Reaction score
- -28
- Country
- Location
IF you are referring to uncircumcised terrorist who drink vodka, watch porno movies and use indian explosives to kill Pakistani children than my friend those are any thing but Islamists.
Actually, it is indians who have lost their mind and do not know how they can break the moral of Pakistanis.
What do you do on this forum!!!!! posting daily news and rejecting Pakistani acheivements?
I have noticed about 5 threads on same topic or based on same news... what kind of extremism would you call it???
http://www.defence.pk/forums/u-s-fo...ks-haqqani-militants-pakistan-government.html
http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistans-war/130039-u-s-suspects-pakistan-link-attack.html
http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...afghanistan-epicentre-terror-chidambaram.html
Dil Pakistan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 3,037
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
I agree that action against Haqqanis should be only if they start behaving like moulvi faqir. There is no need to listen to US otherwise. US does not have that much clout over Pakistan or even Afghanistan compared to 5 years ago and is on the way out. Pakistan should look after its own interests only, we have to live here after US is gone.
Bhairava
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2010
- Messages
- 5,160
- Reaction score
- 0
Indian have lost their sense to make sense due to multiple reason which can't be discussed on this thread.
We don't sympathize with them nor wish them a quick recuperation.
Well ok. Actually we dont need your sympathy. I thought you guys needed ours because you were the ones fighting for the "future of the 7 billion".
Anyway my point stands - Pakistan has no locus standi to accuse Afg of sheltering insurgents in Kunar becuase it is doing the same thing to Afg in North Waziristan.
NATO are not present in Kunar,Nuristan or Laghman the last time I checked. They have withdrawn from there. Ofcourse it might have changed now and do point out with a source if it is such the case.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
That presumably means making nice with Islamist terror groups? If yes, then I suppose we will have to make nice with the TTP as well - either way, Pakistan will still end up in the Islamist terror camp - how will that further Pakistani interests? Can we further Pakistani interests in Afghanistan, even as we lose the state in Pakistan?
Similar threads
