US & Pakistan Dispute and Tensions over Haqqani group

[President Camacho]

Yes, similar things have happened before. The US also accused the Pakistan government of sanctioning the murder of Saleem Shahzad, but where is the evidence man? I'm still waiting for it.

Saleem Shahzad did not die last year or in the 90's. It happened right this year, and I can term it "recently".

So, before you get so vociferous on that, would you care to provide a link where a US official of the stature of Panetta and Mullen has accused the Pakistani government of sanctioning the murder of Saleem Shahzad?

Try the sources that you believe in, and not the research papers or analyses that you always call 'propaganda'.

 

[Doctor09]

There is not one single statement in your post that is true. I cannot believe you are a doctor. No one who exhibits your lack of understanding or ability to understand facts, causes and effects should be diagnosing human illnesses. IMHO.

---------- Post added at 10:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 AM ----------



Perhaps he is the winner in the "self-reflective" or "classical transference" categories.

nice denial mode.........i damn care what you think about me but you Americans have one problem that you people think that whatever you did is always correct and justified ......
its a fact that USA made talibans in the name of freedom fighters against Russian invasion in Afghanistan .............oh is it false ?
you support every illegal act of Israel ..............oh its false too?
you nuked Japan ....... oh again its false ?
you attacked Iraq and told the whole world that Iraq had WMDs but there was no such weapons .....its false ?
you are realy pathetic if you have no answer to these facts then plz dont comment ........ you showed your ignorance and lack of knowledge ......
America killed more people than killed in 9/11....you people bombed innocent Afghanis and Iraqis oh these are all lies according to you sooper dooper americans

 

[53fd]

Saleem Shahzad did not die last year or in the 90's. It happened right this year, and I can term it "recently".

So, before you get so vociferous on that, would you care to provide a link where a US official of the stature of Panetta and Mullen has accused the Pakistani government of sanctioning the murder of Saleem Shahzad?

Try the sources that you believe in, and not the research papers or analyses that you always call 'propaganda'.

There you go:

Mullen: Pakistan Gov Sanctioned Death Of Saleem Shahzad

The source is non-Pakistani, the accuser is Mike Mullen.

I only call baseless speculation with no evidence propaganda. My sources are all international sources, & I read a lot more international papers than you think I do. Read this international paper published by the New America Foundation, it'll clear some of your misconceptions:

http://newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/NAF_NWC_Pakistan_Strategy_Report_1.pdf

 

[President Camacho]

IF.
and it is a very unlikely one..
but IF the Pakistani establishment has been double dealing with terrorism even after 9/11.
And the consequence of which has been the deaths of its own citizens..
It would shatter the nation.. to know that those that were responsible for ensuring the security of its borders.. and themselves..
Have been indirectly or directly responsible for the deaths of their brothers,sisters, mothers,daughters.

one can construe a fictional response, more anti-Americanism..a US response.
A false flag attack on the nuclear facilities..
Sanctions, Nukes targeted.. removed.
India attacks.. etc.

The worst case scenario for Pakistan is never the worst.

No man, the double dealing was at the minimum throughout the Musharraf time.

A bit of it did take place before that, and indeed a lot after that. But states do not go at war against each other simply because they have some rogue elements among them.

This time it is different not because the US is tired of the double dealing, rather because the US has a different plan, and some very supportive cards up its sleeve.

They have their proof, and they will make everyone accept that.

The best course of action for Pakistan would be to negotiate with the US on India's role in the region. The only problem, and a very problem with that is that Pakistan will have to rein in all the state sponsored militia/groups - the so called assets. It will be a big loss, but not the biggest.

 

[Bratva]

What happened to Britain and USA in Afghanistan? USSR's main cause of collapse was not Afghanistan but economy and internal problems.



Lets see. The same argument is used about 'giving Kashmir to Pakistan!' lol Threatening with big words of an imaginary monster, "Give us or you will fail!!!"

What a great coincidence. USSR economy problems surface when they were in Afghanistan and US economy problems surface when they are in Afghanistan too

---------- Post added at 07:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:13 PM ----------

I presume that Pasha is here to examine for himself what evidence the U.S. has of direct Pakistani support of terror attacks against U.S. targets, as alleged in yesterday's news reports. To better track down and eliminate the sources of such information, perhaps.

And what if sources are low level intelligence officials ,informers or the alleged attacker caught who under torture confesses it was ISI who supported them

 

[Windjammer]

Some words of wisdom from Obama will not go a miss. !!


Obama Schools Stupid Indian Girl on Pakistan - YouTube

 

[President Camacho]

There you go:

Mullen: Pakistan Gov Sanctioned Death Of Saleem Shahzad

The source is non-Pakistani, the accuser is Mike Mullen.

I only call baseless speculation with no evidence propaganda. My sources are all international sources, & I read a lot more international papers than you think I do. Read this international paper published by the New America Foundation, it'll clear some of your misconceptions:

http://newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/NAF_NWC_Pakistan_Strategy_Report_1.pdf

Thanks for that!

I was indeed not aware of this statement of his. And it still holds the statement that times and accusations are not the same as the ones in the past. Such accusations post March/April '11 have been way different and more frequent. This 2-3 month old piece cannot be called a 'very very long time ago', can it be?

 

[53fd]

Thanks for that!

I was indeed not aware of this statement of his. And it still holds the statement that times and accusations are not the same as the ones in the past. Such accusations post March/April '11 have been way different and more frequent. This 2-3 month old piece cannot be called a 'very very long time ago', can it be?

I have said that the US has accused the Pakistan Administration directly of hosting the Quetta Shoora, supporting the Afghan Taliban, supporting the LeT for many years now. They tried to implicate the Pakistan government directly in nuclear proliferation, but failed to do so. Most of these accusations have been going back at least a decade. But they have failed to provide any proof, & continue to fail in providing proof.

 

[GOD OF WAR]

Do you guys really need me to take this apart? Aren't you smart enough to trash GoW's comment yourselves?

bring it on... yours truely,

god of war.

P.S. dont run away when it gets too hot for you though, stick around then.

 

[muse]

Alright lets cut to the chase, What are these accusations in the media all about? What is the intention behind these accusations in the media? Generally states do not conduct their affairs in the media, so what's this about? Could it be that all these accusations have been brought up in private and did not have traction and that is why we now see them in the media?

 

[President Camacho]

Alright lets cut to the chase, What are these accusations in the media all about? What is the intention behind these accusations in the media? Generally states do not conduct their affairs in the media, so what's this about? Could it be that all these accusations have been brought up in private and did not have traction and that is why we now see them in the media?

I doubt they would let the private accusations come out even if they had no traction. I have a very strong feeling that all the frequent accusations in the recent times are to generate more of a public appeal for a longer stay in Afghanistan.

 

[Rafael]

Alright lets cut to the chase, What are these accusations in the media all about? What is the intention behind these accusations in the media? Generally states do not conduct their affairs in the media, so what's this about? Could it be that all these accusations have been brought up in private and did not have traction and that is why we now see them in the media?

An anchor on one of the most watched television program enlisted 3 US demands that he says are a reason for this recent media built up against Pakistan:

1- Boots on ground.
2- Control of Gwadar Port.
3- Limit relationship with China.

I don't know how true it is.

 

[muse]

I doubt they would let the private accusations come out even if they had no traction. I have a very strong feeling that all the frequent accusations in the recent times are to generate more of a public appeal for a longer stay in Afghanistan.

El Presidente:

Kiyani has issued a statement in which he says the Afghan army is not ready - that is to say, he wants the US to stay longer -- See, It is not in Pakistan's interest to have ti US depart just yet, the Pakistan side of the Pak-Afghan border is a huge mess and without the US/NATO in Afghanistan, it will be even more of a mess.

The real purpose of the media accusations is get Pakistan to act against the so called Haqqani network -- Why is the Haqqani network so important to the US? What is the relationship between Where the Haqqani network supposedly enjoys sanctuary and the area directly across and the relationship of these areas to the Durand line?

 

[AkhandIndia]

The anchor on one of the most watched television program enlisted 3 US demands that he says are a reason for this recent media built up against Pakistan:

1- Boots on ground.
2- Control of Gwadar Port.
3- Limit relationship with China.

I don't know how true it is.

little bit change in the 2nd part.

they want to annex few portion of bluchistan covering gwadar n will mix it in a-stan.

 

[Rafael]

little bit change in the 2nd part.

they want to annex few portion of bluchistan covering gwadar n will mix it in a-stan.

They can have that only if they are willing to absorb some nukes in their bases all across this region.