Twirp: Terrorist Wahabi Islamic Rep Pakistan 4

[Guest]

<b>Pakistan Strife Raises U.S. Doubts on Nuclear Arms</b>
Scare tactics by US to get more money for Pakiban.

<b>Love Is In The Air BETWEEN Terroristan and Umrica!</b>
Thanks.

[acharya]

Neues Deutschland, Germany
The Vacuum in Pakistan
By Jochen Hippler
Translated By Ron Argentati
2 May 2009
Edited by Katy Burtner
Germany - Neues Deutschland - Original Article (German)

The German public is transfixed by Afghanistan because German soldiers are serving there. Foreign Minister Steinmeier just concluded another visit to the country. With this focus, neighboring Pakistan too often escapes deserved attention, but there’s a war being fought there as well. Last year, 9,000 people were killed by force and by terror attacks in Pakistan – more than the number that died in Afghanistan.

On the foreign policy level, Pakistan is far more significant than Afghanistan. The country has as many inhabitants as Germany, France and Spain combined. There are several million Pakistani residents in the European Union, mainly in Great Britain. The European terrorist connection can often be traced back to Pakistan, the Sauerland terror cell in Germany among them. Above all, however, the country is a nuclear power and possesses more than 60 nuclear warheads. Allowing Pakistan to decline into violence and chaos would be catastrophic for global politics.

The current wave of violence there is relatively new. Until 2002, there were no suicide attacks; now they even occur in the capital city Islamabad. The uprising began in 2002 in the tribal regions on the border with Afghanistan after U.S. troops began firing at cross-border extremist strongholds. The bombardments killed many civilians, women and children included. Then the Pakistani army came under attack because they tried to seal off the borders at the behest of the United States. Finally, the United States began applying enormous pressure on Pakistan to become involved in the “War on Terror” with their troops fighting alongside American soldiers. When that happened, almost all Pakistanis revolted against their government. Add to that the pervasive corruption and decay in government that further alienated the citizenry, and a political vacuum was formed that the Taliban and other extremist groups now fill.

The war in Afghanistan and especially the presence of foreign troops are important causes for the current wave of violence in Pakistan. And the war has now spilled over into Pakistan itself, particularly in the Pashtun regions. That’s why a troop surge in Afghanistan will also be bad news for Pakistan.

Germany, meanwhile, has become aware of the country’s importance, but isn’t sufficiently engaged there. It hasn’t changed direction, neither conceptually or in the commitment of resources. Washington has also not tried to stabilize Pakistan. Western policy continues to focus on using Pakistan to fight the war in Afghanistan – something that adds to destabilizing the country.

A strategic catastrophe is being caused by this tactical error. Above all, the West should be supporting federalism and combating corruption in Pakistan. The Western public and its policies oscillate between neglecting the nation and becoming hysterical about Taliban encroachment. Both are pushing the country further toward the abyss. Pakistan deserves to be the center of policy in the region and shouldn’t continue to be just an appendage of Afghanistan.

[ramana]

The real reason for the vaccum is the desire of the TSPA to bring forth the Khilafat dream of the TSP founders. Since these fundoos are their own creation to enable this dream to be realized they dont want to confront them.

[Naresh]

<b>Indian water terror more dangerous than Taliban</b>

LAHORE (APP) - Chairman Indus Water Council Pakistan and Coordinator World Water Assembly Zahoorul Hassan Dahir has said that ‘Indian water terrorism’ posed more serious threat to Pakistan than Taliban.

Talking to newsmen here on Monday, he said, “After Chenab and Jhelum now India was pursuing a plan to get complete control over Indus River.” He said the pace with which India was diverting Pakistani rivers, days are not far off when country would face situation like Somalia, Ethiopia and Chad.

He was of the view that problems of terrorism, insurgency and Talbanisation have been created just to divert attention from Indian ‘Water Terrorism’.

He said Indian Parliament has approved construction of 500 km long train track from Hamachel Pradesh to Ladakh which would be utilised for transportation of construction material for Kargil Dam and three other reservoirs being built on the Indus River.

Terming water aggression as more dangerous and devastating than atom bomb, he urged government to take effective measures to secure Pakistan’s water rights.

He said Pakistan’s efforts for sorting out contentious issues about Baglihar Dam and Kishan Ganga Hydro Power project have failed, therefore government should approach International Court of Justice.

He was of the view that due to Indian water aggression , matters have reached to a point where World Bank could not play effective role, therefore, International Court of Justice was proper forum for seeking justice.

Cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Naresh]

<b>The future of Pakistani Federation</b>

<b>The Pakistani Federation is torn by the rising dissensions between a dominant Punjab majority and the disaffected Baluch, Sindhi and Pashtun ethnic minorities.</b> The centre for International Policy under its Asia Programme Director, Selig S. Harrison has recently released a special report entitled, ‘Pakistan : The State of the Union’ after conducting a six-month research from October 2008 through March 2009.

After focusing on four key issues, i.e., the intractable nature of the ethnic conflict; the principal grievances of the minorities and the response of the central government; and how the American policies will actually affect these ethnic conflicts, Mr Harrison concludes that in spite of the active military assistance sought by the Baluch and Sindhi insurgents from foreign powers the Pakistan Federation will sustain if the provincial autonomy provisions of the 1973 Constitution are fully implemented.

Cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[acharya]

<b>Blowing hot and cold</b>
Published: May 4, 2009

WASHINGTON is at its game of using pressure tactics against Islamabad once again to compel it to take firmer action against militants. President Barack Obama referred to its civilian authority as "very fragile" in unmistakably clear terms last Wednesday. As he answered questions at a press conference he addressed on the completion of 100 days in office, President Obama felt "gravely concerned" at its inability to deliver. Nevertheless, he had expressed confidence that its nuclear arsenal was secure mainly because "the Pakistan Army, I think, recognises the hazards of those weapons falling into wrong hands". He added that the US was, however, ready to secure them in a worst-case scenario.

These views were deeply resented and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani reacted strongly and took issue with him. President Obama might have succeeded in alarming the world about an imminent collapse of the civilian government, though there was little basis for making such an assumption, but at the same time he evoked strong resentment among Pakistanis. Many of them believe that the acquisition of Pakistan's nuclear assets was also on Washington's agenda, apart from dealing with the terrorist menace. President Obama's views were put down to pressure tactics for Islamabad to prove its credentials by taking stronger action against the militants.

Now comes a complete volte face. Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke puts the blame on the media for giving the 'wrong impression', "This is journalistic garbage. This is journalistic gobbledygook", and has expressed full confidence in the government's ability to deliver. He has held out the assurance that the US supported the democratically elected President Asif Zardari, who, he said, would be one of the first foreign heads of state to visit the White House since President Obama's taking office. He gave all sorts of arguments in support of the view that Washington believed in the Pakistan government's viability to deliver, like the successful Friends of Pakistan meeting at Tokyo and the Kerry-Lugar bill. However, Mr Obama's words, expressing views about its fragility in plain and simple terms, would continue to jar on Pakistanis' ears. In a latest interview with CNN, Secretary of Defence Robert Gates talks of the expanding reach of the militants in the northwestern Pakistan, posing an "existential threat" to Islamabad.

[acharya]

Blowing hot and cold
Published: May 4, 2009

WASHINGTON is at its game of using pressure tactics against Islamabad once again to compel it to take firmer action against militants. President Barack Obama referred to its civilian authority as "very fragile" in unmistakably clear terms last Wednesday. As he answered questions at a press conference he addressed on the completion of 100 days in office, President Obama felt "gravely concerned" at its inability to deliver. Nevertheless, he had expressed confidence that its nuclear arsenal was secure mainly because "the Pakistan Army, I think, recognises the hazards of those weapons falling into wrong hands". He added that the US was, however, ready to secure them in a worst-case scenario.
These views were deeply resented and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani reacted strongly and took issue with him. President Obama might have succeeded in alarming the world about an imminent collapse of the civilian government, though there was little basis for making such an assumption, but at the same time he evoked strong resentment among Pakistanis. Many of them believe that the acquisition of Pakistan's nuclear assets was also on Washington's agenda, apart from dealing with the terrorist menace. President Obama's views were put down to pressure tactics for Islamabad to prove its credentials by taking stronger action against the militants.

Now comes a complete volte face. Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke puts the blame on the media for giving the 'wrong impression', "This is journalistic garbage. This is journalistic gobbledygook", and has expressed full confidence in the government's ability to deliver. He has held out the assurance that the US supported the democratically elected President Asif Zardari, who, he said, would be one of the first foreign heads of state to visit the White House since President Obama's taking office. He gave all sorts of arguments in support of the view that Washington believed in the Pakistan government's viability to deliver, like the successful Friends of Pakistan meeting at Tokyo and the Kerry-Lugar bill. However, Mr Obama's words, expressing views about its fragility in plain and simple terms, would continue to jar on Pakistanis' ears. In a latest interview with CNN, Secretary of Defence Robert Gates talks of the expanding reach of the militants in the northwestern Pakistan, posing an "existential threat" to Islamabad.

[Guest]

<b>US Senate takes up aid to Pakistan bill </b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->WASHINGTON: The US Congress made a friendly gesture to President Asif Ali Zardari on Monday,  introducing a bill to triple American aid to Pakistan on the day he arrives in the US capital on a four-day visit.
Two influential senators – Democrat John Kerry and Republican Richard Lugar – introduced the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement or the PEACE Act of 2009, in the Senate on Monday afternoon after a long delay.
........<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<b>Suicide attack on military vehicle kills five: police </b>
According to police, the suicide attacker rammed his car into a vehicle of the security convoy near a police checkpost.

<b>Militants besiege 46 security men in Mingora </b>
Taliban takes control of Mingora after attacking the headquarters of security forces and the police station.

<b>Extradition treaty with Britain unlikely </b>
Pakistan is not interested in signing any agreement allowing UK to deport Pakistanis on national security grounds.

<b>Balochistan decides to abolish district govts </b>
The new act will abolish all district govts and restore metropolitan corporations and municipal committees.

[Guest]

<b>Robert Gates sees larger role for Saudis in Pakistan </b>

[Naresh]

<b>Virgin Resources face further Depletion</b>

Cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Naresh]

<b>Banned 16 named and shamed</b>

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Sixteen people banned from entering the UK have been named by the</b> <b>Home Office.</b>

Hamas MP Yunis al-Astal. Making up the rest of the 16 are preachers Wadgy Abd el-Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim, Abdullah Qadri al-Ahdal, Safwat Hijazi and Amir Siddique, Muslim activist Abdul Ali Musa (previously Clarence Reams), murderer and Hezbollah terrorist Samir al-Quntar and Kashmiri terror group leader Nasr Javed.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[acharya]

<b>JUST WALK AWAY
TIME TO DUMP PAKISTAN </b>

By RALPH PETERS

Last updated: 12:45 am
May 4, 2009
Posted: 12:37 am
May 4, 2009

WHAT Washington calls "strategy" is usually just inertia: We can't imagine not supporting Pakistan because we've "always" supported Pakistan.

No matter how shamelessly Pakistan's leaders looted their own country, protected the Taliban, sponsored terror attacks on India, demanded aid and told us to kiss off when we asked for help, we had to back the Paks.

Because that's just the way things are.

Well, now that Islamist marauders are sweeping the country with violence as the generals in Rawalpindi mull "To be or not to be" and President Ali Asif Zardari knocks back another scotch behind closed doors, perhaps we should consider an alternative approach to this splintering, renegade state.

A better strategy's obvious. But Washington has trouble with the obvious. At our pathetic State Department, habit trumps innovation every time. And the Pentagon can't seem to see beyond the immediate battlefield.

What should we do? Dump Pakistan. Back India.

Washington's deep thinkers will cry, "But China might move in!"

If China wants Pakistan, let Beijing have it. That would be fun to watch. Take on the Taliban? Given China's ghastly ineptitude in dealing with its Uighur Muslims, more power to 'em.

Anyway, China knows that India's the prize. Indian neutrality is essential to any future conflict with the United States. Beijing isn't going to do anything to drive New Delhi into a closer relationship with Washington (and the US Navy).

So set the "China syndrome" fears aside. Move on to the integrity issue: We claim -- or used to claim -- that we're serious about combating terrorists and punishing their backers.

Yet, we've been abetting the forces of terror by supporting Pakistan unreservedly. Islamabad merrily sponsors terror attacks on India, knowing that America will step in and convince New Delhi not to retaliate.

Apart from the myriad Pak-backed terror strikes in Kashmir, we've seen gruesome attacks in New Delhi and, most recently, in Mumbai. Pakistan's intelligence services did everything but put up billboards announcing that they were behind the terrorists.

India prepared to strike back. But we stepped in every time.

As long as Pakistan's obsessed India-haters know there won't be any penalties for terrorism, they'll keep at it. The formula isn't hard to figure out.

Suppose we just left Pakistan, even withdrawing our embassy personnel? Without us to protect them when they go rogue, would Pakistan's murky intel thugs still launch terror strikes on India?

Pakistan would have to behave responsibly at last. Or face nuclear-armed India. And Pakistan's leaders know full well that a nuclear exchange would leave their country a wasteland. India would dust itself off and move on.

Of course, there's also the issue of the Pentagon's bewildering incompetence in placing 50,000 of our troops at the end of a 1,500-mile supply line through Pakistan, rendering our forces virtual hostages of Islamabad.

The answer's another dose of common sense: Instead of increasing our troop numbers in Afghanistan, cut them. Instead of embracing the hopeless task of building a modern nation where no nation of any kind has ever existed, concentrate exclusively on killing al Qaeda terrorists and the hard-line Taliban elements who help them.

Instead of pretending the Kabul government has any validity, arm the factions with which we share common interests. We're really not obliged to cut massive welfare checks for our enemies.

Our sole mission in Afghanistan should be killing terrorists. To that end, we need a smaller, lethal, unfettered force, not more agricultural experts and con-game contractors.

Bottom line: Let India deal with Pakistan. If the Chinese want to engage, just smile. Focus on killing our enemies, not buying them ice cream. And get serious about strategy. How is it that the leaders of the most powerful state in history think like small-time operators?

Briefing Washington audiences, I warn them that, when the boss tells them to think outside the box, he really means, "Come back with new reasons why I was right all along."

It's time for some genuine outside-the-box thinking. Because the Pakistani box looks increasingly like a coffin.

Ralph Peters is Fox News' strategic analyst and the author of "Looking for Trouble."

[Naresh]

<b>US nixes Pak plea for Indian troop withdrawal</b>

WASHINGTON : Pakistan is pressing the Obama administration to ask India to reduce troops from its borders in order for Islamabad to spend more resources to fighting extremists inside its own territory. President Obama isn't buying that, according to US officials

<b>Instead, Pakistan will be told again that it needs to get out of its India fixation and look within itself when President Asif Ali Zardari meets President Obama at the White House on Wednesday.

Zardari will also be asked to account for Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and its security amid worldwide concerns about extremists getting close to the weapons.</b>

Zardari's line going into the three-way talks with Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai to be hosted by Obama this week was outlined by the country's US ambassador Hussain Haqqani, who told an online forum "It's time for Obama to put in a call to the Indians telling them, 'If you move some of your troops, they'll move theirs."

Pakistan's army chief Ashfaq Kiyani is said to have made just that promise in a recent meeting with US special envoy Richard Holbrooke. But the White House dismissed the idea, while conceding that there may have been some conversations along those lines.

"I think the President spoke pretty clearly to this last week in underscoring where the threat lies in Pakistan and where it doesn't," Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs said at a White House briefing on Monday. The President, Gibbs said, will reiterate what he told the media at his White House press conference last week, when he essentially maintained that Pakistan's obsession with India as a mortal threat was misguided and the country ought to get over it.

Instead, US officials revealed that Washington is now focused on Pakistan's nuclear weapons with laser-like intensity and it will be the top item on the agenda for talks where even Afghanistan is talking a backseat.

In an interview with BBC, US National Security Advisor James Jones said Washington needs specific guarantees from Islamabad that its nuclear weapons are safe.

"If Pakistan doesn't continue in the direction that it presently is (moving towards moderation) and we're not successful there then, obviously, the nuclear question comes into view," Jones said.

"We have received many assurances from the military that this is something they have under control but this is very much an ongoing topic," he added. "The world would like to know that on this question, that there's absolute security and transparency."

Privately, US officials say Pakistani guarantees are vague and unspecific and Washington is looking for more concrete assurances. Pakistan's descent into chaos and custody of its nuclear weapons has become the hot button topic in Washington, where Iraq has virtually fallen off the map. Every think tank in town is bashing heads about Pakistan. Headlines and cartoons in the US media portray a dire situation and a bleak future for the country.

One recent cartoon showed a lone Pakistani sentry sitting atop a nuclear bomb and asking "Stop! Who goes there?" as shadowy Osama-like figures lurk all around it. Pakistan's eternal gripe against India is getting less and less traction as US talking heads get more familiar with the region's history going back to the events leading to the creation of the Islamic Republic. On Sunday, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice joined current administration officials in reflecting about Pakistan's identity crisis and its India's fixation.

"Pakistan is just such a fragile entity," Rice was quoted as saying in response to a question at Jewish Primary Day School in Washington after delivering the Yitzhak Rabin Memorial Lecture. "You know, having been carved as it was, essentially, out of India, its identity has always been a problem and its always -- not always, but some elements in Pakistan find their identity through extremism and through extreme anti-India sentiment."

India, Rice said, speaking freely in a rare public appearance, does not want to be part of this crisis and is focusing on more positive things like economic development. But "there are some people for whom there is no positive agenda for Pakistan; it's all about aggression."

Whether the Obama administration will be able to convince Pakistan fully about this -- despite the President's claim that Islamabad is starting to comprehend it -- remains to be seen. Most experts reckon that while Zardari and others in Pakistan's civilian leadership get it, its hardline military remains inflexible.

Zardari is being accompanied to Washington by the ISI Director General Ahmed Shuja Pasha and the chief of military operations Maj Gen Javid Iqbal.

Cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Naresh]

[center]<b><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Pakistan’s pakigenous manufactured Double Decker Bus!</span></b>[/center]

[center]<img src='http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2009/05/05/PH2009050503805.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />[/center]

Cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Guest]

They are sitting , shoes are facing towards ALLAH <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Guest]

BREAKING NEWS:
15 hurt in explosions in Dera Ismail Khan

<b>Nawaz announces launch of struggle for Baloch people </b>

[Guest]

<b>US not to support military coup: Holbrooke </b>
US telling Paki Army, not so fast. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Guest]

<img src='http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/indiaforum/608x325.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />


Check picture, Arab with Jinnah.
They are forcing links with Arab.

[Naresh]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+May 7 2009, 01:48 AM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ May 7 2009, 01:48 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><img src='http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/indiaforum/608x325.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />


Check picture, Arab with Jinnah.
They are forcing links with Arab.
[right][snapback]97038[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<b>Mudy Ji :</b>

That is the Chief Justice during Jinnah's "Oath" taking for his office!

Cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->