Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 78910111213141516
Results 226 to 235 of 235

Thread: For Pakistan, terrorism is a state-sponsored business

  1. #226
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,525
    Why Pakistan will go to the IMF again, and again and again, and this is the 22nd time Pak is left holding a begging bowl. You know what, keep peddling terrorism, narcotics, counterfeit currency and very soon there will be a 23rd time with an even bigger begging bowl.

    prior to going to the IMF - by requesting friends like Saudi Arabia and China for help and coming out empty handed?, LOL, and it says this is the 18th time. The thing with Pakistan, 2+2=22, flying djinns and bullshit. All is well, Allah-hooo-Akbara, Wajib-ul-Qatil.

    BCCI stance on India-Pakistan matches is 'hypocrisy': Mani
    Stop Begging for everything. Begging is not a right, neither a privilege.
    Last edited by Oracle; 17 Oct 18, at 07:43.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  2. #227
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,525
    Name:  Pak Duplicity.png
Views: 22
Size:  65.4 KB

    Pak duplicity on display. Terrorists are called combatants.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  3. #228
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,525
    5 terrorists killed by security forces in Baramulla

    3, trying to sneak in through the LoC in Baramulla, goes to hell. Another 2, killed at a security check-point, where their car was ordered to stop, and they opened fire only to be neutralised. Mr. Asif Ghafoor, when will you guys understand that this policy of state sponsored terrorism is not fetching any results, and is instead taking your country towards the gutter. Huh!, even donkeys have a functional brain.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  4. #229
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,525
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  5. #230
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,525
    Pakistan’s Pivot to Asia
    Imran Khan is addressing his nation's challenges by choosing liberally from a menu of Western and Asian futures.


    Just a few years ago, the news out of Pakistan would have sent official Washington into a tailspin. But with cable TV broadcasting Trump nonstop, few bothered to even note that a champion cricketer turned populist firebrand, Imran Khan, won the election as prime minister this summer. Nor did many pause over the fact that Khan won that election with the backing of an increasingly pro-Chinese military, or that he promised to pull Pakistan “out of the War on Terror,” or that he’s now presiding over a financial collapse. The most significant coverage Khan gets is as a comic oddity on The Daily Show, where he’s been mocked as an “even more tanned version of Donald Trump.”

    The Trump effect means that America is missing the new geopolitics emerging across the world. Nowhere have I felt this more intensely than in Pakistan, where I traveled to interview the then-candidate Khan last October. Khan is much more than a celebrity clinging to his looks and lusting for power. He provides a glimpse into what the post-American world might look like: a chaotic stage where strongmen find themselves buffeted by Western, Arab, and Chinese forces.

    When I arrived at my hotel in Islamabad, staff complained about how quiet things had become. Just a few years ago, at the height of the War on Terror, the capital had been abuzz with journalists and CIA agents in transit out of Afghanistan. Now, I was told, the most common guests were Chinese businessmen.

    This was the new Pakistan, which Khan said should reject American power. In the 1970s, when Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto attempted—and failed—to distance Pakistan from the Western bloc, going so far as to wear a Mao cap and promise “Islamic socialism,” there were no giant Asian economies to back him up. Pakistan was then a state where China and the Gulf felt far away. Today, both can be felt almost everywhere.

    Pakistani TV commercials feature friendly Chinese neighbors; pork, prohibited for sale under Pakistan’s Islamic-inspired law, is available in Chinese shops; enormous billboards announce construction sites for the “China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.” Pakistan is a centerpiece of Chinese foreign policy, at the heart of a projected $1 trillion worth of investments, loans, and infrastructure projects around the globe known as the “Belt and Road Initiative.”

    You can see Arab globalization at work in Karachi’s Jinnah International Airport, where every day thousands of migrant workers take off for Dubai, Riyadh, and Abu Dhabi, and hundreds of imams and pilgrims unload from Saudi Arabia. Economic migrants and religious students not only bring back an Arabized Islam from the Gulf; they also make Islam’s ancient dream of the Ummah, the world commonwealth of believers, feel real through their mobility.

    But it would be a mistake to think the West is no longer present. English proficiency in Pakistan has soared in Khan’s lifetime, spreading from a small handful of elites to a large share of the general population, according to the British Council. Accordingly, Pakistan’s English-language media and an Anglo-linked fashion and film industry have boomed.

    None of this is to suggest that Pakistan is a healthy country. A ramshackle and militarized state that has received 12 IMF bailouts since the late 1980s, it is surrounded by rising Asia but not part of it. At independence in 1947, it had higher living standards than China and India. Now it’s fallen far behind these two neighbors. Even Bangladesh has surpassed Pakistan in terms of both exports and life expectancy. And by some measures, Bangladesh has now overtaken Pakistan in GDP per capita as well.

    As a candidate, Khan tried to address his country’s frustrations by choosing liberally from a menu of Western and Asian futures. He promised a “China Model,” an “Islamic welfare state,” and “British-style” social security, while pledging to ditch U.S. aid, which “enslaves the country.”

    But it took Khan a while to arrive at this fusion-populist persona, which proved so winning with the Pakistani public.

    “I’m probably the most famous Pakistani ever in its history,” was how Khan summed himself up to me last October. And that wasn’t an absurd boast. Americans can grasp Khan’s celebrity in Pakistan by imagining Donald Trump and Michael Jordan combined into one megastar.

    Khan left Pakistan at 17 to play cricket and studied at Oxford University, then became captain of Pakistan’s national cricket team. When Khan returned home after winning the 1992 World Cup, the crowds were so huge it took hours for his car to get beyond the airport: He had done the unimaginable and beaten England at its own game in the final. “Memories of colonialism were very close then,” said Khan.

    He was a symbol of Pakistani success in the West, and of the potential for Pakistan to triumph over the West.

    In 1996, he launched himself into politics as the head of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, a new party. At the time, he thought it wise to underline his proximity to Europe. He toured Pakistan with his first wife, Jemima Goldsmith, the daughter of an Anglo-French Jewish billionaire, and twice hosted Princess Diana with public fanfare in Lahore.

    These days, he does his utmost to disassociate himself from Europe and the United States. He told me that he has almost entirely given up Western dress. “Having to leave Pakistan now is for me the worst thing,” he said. The man who brought Princess Diana to Pakistan now routinely castigates blasphemers and prays at the tombs of saints with his third wife, a spiritual leader, who wears a glistening white veil.

    Nevertheless, Khan remains deeply linked to the English-speaking world. He is the father of two British sons with his first wife and is an enthusiastic follower of British politics. When I asked Khan’s finance minister, Asad Umar, what had surprised him most about his leader as he got to know him, he said: “He’s incredibly English. I don’t know anyone else in Pakistan who will say ‘gosh.’ He’ll quote Shakespeare. He’s … very English.”

    Breaking out into a grin, Umar continued: “He’ll talk about English politics in mainstream rallies with half a million people standing in front of him, 98 percent of whom don’t give a rat’s ass about what happens in England, and he’ll go into great detail about the expenses scandal and how the English system reacted to it, or how the jury system in England will work and how Parliament responds. Even I have said, ‘For heaven’s sake, stop quoting what happens in England.’”

    Just like populist firebrands in the West, Khan ran for prime minister furiously campaigning against the elite (although he is, of course, a member of the elite). They were “corrupt mafiosi” who had “humiliated Pakistani.” And just like populist firebrands in the West, his plan for Pakistan was hard to categorize between left and right: a religiously tinged promise to take the brakes off social spending and stamp out corruption.

    I stood behind Khan onstage at his rally in Mandi Bahauddin last October, so close I worried he might knock me over as he gesticulated furiously. “The Prophet Muhammad was a politician,” he told an audience of 20,000. But instead of dropping Quranic edicts, he promised “an Islamic welfare” like that available “in Britain and Scandinavia.” For his closing note, he said that under his leadership, Pakistan would rise like China. Khan thundered: “China has improved the living standards of 700 million people. We must work along those lines.”

    When I drove back to Islamabad with Khan, the future prime minister outlined his post-American foreign policy. It was simple enough: no more U.S. military aid, drone attacks, and proxy wars.

    Khan believed that the price Pakistan paid to be a “major non-nato ally” in the War on Terror was too high. Direct lines to the U.S. president, scores of F-16s, and military-aid packages from the Pentagon were not worth what Khan called the “billions and billions of damage.”

    Becoming “a frontline state” for the U.S. in Afghanistan, said Khan, “was the worst thing we ever did for our society,” fueling gun violence, heroin addiction, and religious radicalization.

    Pakistan, Khan announced, would “no longer be a client state” under his leadership. It “would wean itself off from the aid syndrome” and henceforth “stop fighting other people’s wars,” like the one on the Taliban. “Drone strikes must end,” he said, demanding that the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and cease operations inside it.

    The only solution in Afghanistan, he told me, was the one that formally acknowledged the end of American hegemony by bringing Washington’s rivals into the settlement. “Peace in Afghanistan will not come,” said Khan, “unless all the neighbors—Iran, Russia, China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the United States—sit down at a table and come up with a negotiated settlement.”

    I’d heard that Khan’s most fervent new supporters were the poor and working class of Karachi, but had a hard time understanding what they saw in an Oxford-educated friend of Mick Jagger. So I joined the local Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf leader Ali Zaidi on a tour of the slums: miles upon miles of tottering concrete homes cut through with rivers of raw sewage, an enormous recruiting ground for low-wage labor.

    Each time the car reached a party outpost, the local activists switched on “the Imran Khan song” before Zaidi, now one of Khan’s ministers, promised a “Naya Pakistan”—a new Pakistan. When I asked Khan’s future voters what place the “Naya Pakistan” would most resemble, the answers were remarkably consistent: Dubai, or Riyadh, or Abu Dhabi. The cities glittering in their minds over the water. They had family, brothers, cousins, and sons working in “Saudia,” these supporters proudly told me, sometimes pointing to their Facebook messages and WhatsApps on their phones, as if I would not otherwise believe them.

    “He’s selling Pakistanis a dream,” said Umar, the finance minister, in the cool of his home in the elite neighborhood of Defense. “But he’s not a con man.” Khan, to him, was not an ideologue or a populist, but a genius at what Umar called “PR.”

    That dream, quite clearly, is that Pakistan can join rising Asia—that it will come to resemble Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates, where many Pakistanis have worked, and from which they receive remittances. Seen from the slums of Karachi, “Saudia” is not a synonym for backwardness.

    Khan’s middle-class supporters, whom I met in Defense, Clifton, and Karachi’s other fancy areas, also dreamt of rising Asia. Their daughters looked to Malaysian YouTube stars for the latest hijab styles. One businessman said he would have liked to run a company from London, but it would have been nostalgic and inconvenient since the goods from all his warehouses ended up in China. Many of these businessmen had flats in Dubai and financial ties to Singapore.

    Many business elites I spoke with had a political as well as economic enthusiasm for what they saw in China, Dubai, and Singapore: free-market authoritarianism. This put them on the same page as Imran Khan. “He’s always been impressed by the former head of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew,” Imran Khan’s nephew Shershah Khan told me in Lahore. “He keeps mentioning him.”

    Perhaps because Pakistan’s globalized middle classes no longer aspire exclusively to Western-style economies, they no longer seem to aspire uniquely to Western liberalism, either. At any rate, Khan’s clear ties to the military didn’t put them off.

    Khan has long been accused of being a tool of Pakistan’s shadowy network of generals, judges, and intelligence chiefs known as “the Establishment.” Khan admitted to me that he “brainstormed” with Hamid Gul, the notorious intelligence chief, before entering politics. But he snapped at me when I asked if he was colluding with the military. “What is it the military is doing wrong that I have backed?”

    There was no collusion, according to Khan, just shared values: Like Khan, the military wanted to put China first, punish the old political class, and move away from the United States.

    When Khan’s victory came in July, EU election observers condemned “systematic attempts to undermine the ruling party.” The triumphant Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf shrugged off accusations that the military had picked winners and losers, but didn’t bother to mount a robust defense. Khan clearly believed that he no longer had to play by Western rules.

    After his election, however, he found the West indispensable after all.

    By the time Khan was sworn in as prime minister in August, Pakistan was in the midst of a balance-of-payments crisis that had been building for months.

    There were several triggers for the crisis. Pakistan imports more than it exports, and its large trade deficit has left it highly vulnerable. This summer, the price of oil began to rise and the American Federal Reserve raised interest rates. Streams of money left emerging markets for better returns in the United States. Pakistan’s currency fell, and Islamabad burned through its reserves. All along, Islamabad had been borrowing money and importing machinery from Beijing to pay for Belt and Road projects, making matters worse.

    Asia’s new geopolitics tightened the squeeze. In September, the Pentagon said it had made a final decision to cancel $300 million in aid to Pakistan, citing inadequate action on Taliban-linked militants operating in the country.

    Khan’s government sought a bailout from China last month. But Beijing only offered short-term financing. The rising power refused to play the role of lender of last resort, choosing instead to let its loans work as a debt trap. Khan flew to Saudi Arabia seeking a bailout there, but he returned empty-handed.

    Finally, this month, Khan’s government officially sought yet another bailout from the IMF for up to $8 billion. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has made clear that it would only come with strings attached—including a guarantee that the money would not be used to repay loans to Beijing. Pakistan will also have to share with the IMF the details of China’s secretive loans.

    Thus the balance of power in Islamabad is now clear: American political power is retreating; American dollar power is not. China may be rising fast, but it’s not yet a counterpart to Western financial institutions, nor is it ready to dictate Pakistani finances like the IMF.

    In more ways than one, Pakistan shows what geopolitics will look like after American hegemony. It will be an intensely fluid, messier world. Different political and economic models, not just Western ones, will appeal to elites. The U.S. and China will compete, and they will both wield enormous influence at once. Both Western and Chinese finance will be in play. There will be no simple power shift from one hegemon to another.

    The new world of several great empires, with none dominant, might resemble the precolonial era more than the recent past. As we drove across the Punjab, Khan spoke extensively of his ancestors: the 16th-century Pashtun warrior princes who had ruled between Safavid Persia and the Mughal emperors, and who’d met Western merchants on the trade routes to Ming China. They, too, had lived in a polycentric age in which the West was one pole, but not supreme.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  6. #231
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,525
    Hard-hitting and to the point.

    Kashmir: Religious ideology is the only problem

    Recently a Kashmiri student of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), Manan Wani, was killed in an encounter in Handwara in the Kashmir Valley. Two other fellow terrorists belonging to the Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) were also killed with him. Manan Wani was pursuing a PhD course in Geology before joining the Hizbul Mujahideen.

    Five months ago, in May 2018, an associate professor of Kashmir University, Mohd Rafi Bhatt, was killed along with five HM terrorists. The professor who taught Sociology had just joined the HM.

    There is a message in these two incidents. The message is that the global jihadi ideology overrides sociology, geology etc. It also underscores the fact that the problem in Kashmir is not about democracy or development. It is purely engendered by religious ideology in resonance with Pakistan.

    Mehbooba Mufti lamented that Kashmir is losing educated boys every day. It is because Abdullahs and Muftis, all through these years have done nothing to wean away the Kashmiris from the narrative of the global jihad. In fact, they are white collar accomplices to this whole project.

    Manan Wani’s status of a PhD student is being touted as ‘scholar’ and his elimination as purge of Kashmiri intellectuals. It will be worthwhile for these spin doctors to ascertain that how many PhDs are serving in the police and security forces, as jawans, sepoys, and constables.

    The truth of the matter is that the bigger the educational degree of a jihadi, the more dreaded or beastly, he or she is. Omar Sheikh, the man who carried out so called ‘halal killing’ of the journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002, is a product of London School of Economics. As per some sources, Baghdadi was a PhD in Education. Similarly, Al Zawahiri, who now heads the Al Qaeda, has a Masters Degree in Surgery. His predecessor and mentor, Osama Bin Laden had degrees in Engineering and Public Administration.

    The US Department of Homeland Security funded a $12 million project ‘Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism’ (START). The research team comprised 30 scientists. The study revealed that 90 percent of the jihadis came from caring families, 63 percent had gone to college. The terrorists who perpetrated 9/11 were well educated and belong to economically well off Saudi and Egyptian families.

    As per the National Investigating Agency (NIA), of the cases registered against individuals having ISI connections, nearly 40 percent of them are engineering students.

    In the cloak of education, Pak sponsored jihadis from Kashmir are infiltrating various colleges and universities in the country. Recently, on Oct 09, three of them were apprehended in Jullundur in Punjab. They constituted a module of Ansar Ghazwat-ul-Hind. These terrorists operated from the hostel. For the sake of cover they had enrolled in Engineering and Management College. This module was busted by a joint operations of Punjab & J&K police. This joint operation was only possible because there is Governor rule in J&K. Earlier Punjab Police apprehended one Ghazi Ahmad Malik in Patiala. He , a resident of Shopian was enrolled in a Polytechnic College. He is a close relative of Adil Basir Sheikh, the SPO who decamped with seven rifles while deployed as part of security team of a MLA. He then submitted himself to the HM. Thus Pak sponsored global jihad through the aegis of Kashmiri has growing tentacles in educational institutions all over India i.e. from JNU to AMU, from Osmania to Jhadavpur , and from Kerela to Punjab.

    Clearly Pakistan is widening the arc of jihadi proxy war.

    The irony is that these people, who are touting the educated and scholarly status of some of these jihadis, are steeped in the global jihad ideology , which destroyed the Nalanda University and the library in Alexandria.

    Now that the AMU like the JNU is in focus with regard to jihad in Kashmir, it is worthwhile to reflect on the former’s past. Jihad to AMU comes very naturally. Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman, one of the founding fathers of Pakistan and the President of the Muslim League (1948-50) has written a book ‘Pathway to Pakistan’. In this book he has categorically stated that if there was no Aligarh Muslim University, there would have been no Pakistan. Aga Khan, also was of the same opinion. In 1954 he said: “Often, in civilized history a University has supplied the spring board for a nation’s intellectual and spiritual renaissance… Aligarh is no exception to this rule. But we may claim with pride that Aligarh was the product of our own efforts and for no outside benevolence and surely it may also be deemed that the independent sovereign nation of Pakistan was born in the Muslim University of Aligarh.”

    No wonder that the students union of the AMU still has so much affinity with Jinnah, whose portrait they are not prepared to part with.

    During the partition, some students of the AMU had spat on the face of Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad for his advocacy of Hindustan for Muslims. In 1979 there was an altercation between AMU students and locals at Dadri Railway Station over eve-teasing. The students were at the receiving end for their misdemeanor. They chose the few, rather negligible, Hindu families quartered in the AMU as their target of retaliation. 60-70 students entered the house of the estate officer. All the children of this officer were born and educated in AMU campus. The students ransacked their house, beat up the family, outraged the modesty of women. In the gang was also a hockey-stick wielding professor. This professor was the son-in-law of former President of India. One Shia, from the non-teaching staff tried to rescue the family, he too was abused and beaten. He was abused as belonging to the ilk of those responsible for decline of Muslim power in India. All the shops owned by Hindus in the adjacent Zakaria market were burnt. The famous shop Kitab Ghar near the Suleman Hall was also burnt. One MBBS student Pradeep Johri was killed in the heart of the campus. His body lay for three days as the accomplice university administration ensured that the police was not allowed to enter. Pradeep Johri’s uncle was a professor in the same AMU Medical College. Unlike the rest of the university, 90 percent students in the engineering and medical college were Hindus, who were there by sheer dint of merit. It was with the design to deter Hindus from joining these institutions that Johri was murdered in full public view. When that did not deter, Interview was introduced for manipulation of admission into the Medical College. This fraud continued for some years till it was struck down by the judiciary.

    In early 70s there was some gap before A M Khusro took over as Vice Chancellor of AMU. In this intervening period one Prof Harbans Lal Sharma of Hindi department was the acting VC. The radical gang of teachers and students did not allow him to occupy the office and pejorative reasons about his religious status weretouted.The refrain was, ‘’ how can (!!!!!) Hindu be allowed to sully the chair of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan.”

    Well in Sir Syed’s AMU there was an interesting case of Nikah Halala between a chemistry professor and his Phd student. This was reported in detail by Sunday Mail. The Phd student had married a girl from the campus. The marriage got strained over financial difficulties, because the Phd lingered, as did the prospect of job. In a fit of rage the Phd student blurted triple talaq. When tempers cooled there was deep regret and the student wanted to rescind. He consulted his paternal mentor, the professor. The professor offered ‘nikah halala’ as per the religious tenets, so that the couple could be re-united as soon as possible. The girl never returned to her former husband!!! The Phd went literally mad. AMU straddles between India and Pakistan in several ways. Irfan Habib, the historian, who claims knowledge on all facets of history, except 1400 years of Islamic history, has a brother who is a citizen of Pakistan.

    The Abdullahs and Muftis also have strong connections to the AMU. Sheikh Abdullah was educated in this University and so was Rubaiya Sayeed, sister of Mehbooba Mufti. Her staged kidnapping even as her father Mufti Mohammad Sayeed was the Home Minster of India, was to herald global jihad in Kashmir.

    What was the latest mission of HM jihadis like Manan Wani? It was to derail democracy. It was to terrorize Kashmiris against participating in the local elections. In this regard, the National Conference (NC) and the PDP are on the same page. They boycotted the elections. They appealed to the Supreme Court that in view of the elections, hearing on Article 35A petition should be postponed. Once it was postponed there was no reason to boycott the elections. But Pakistan wanted it that way.

    There are strong reasons for boycott of elections by the NC and the PDP. The main reason is of course, Pakistan; the second reason is that the Muftis and Abdullahas are apprehensive that these elections may throw up new leaders; and third being that the elections may usher in new internal dynamics within the state. It is for no reason, that most acts of terror by the jihadi groups have occurred in South Kashmir, PDP’s stronghold, during this period. These elections are also a mirror to the Indian Establishment regarding the reality of J&K. The reality is that Valley based political parties have no concern for the democratic aspirations of people of Jammu, Kargil and Laddakh, where the voting percentage has been very high.

    The moot question is whether the jihadis in form of militants, separatists and mainstream politicians are really serious about Islam, jihad or Kashmir? Is their patron Pakistan serious about it? Are the radicals in AMU, JNU, Jadhavpur, Osmania are serious about it? Are the jihadi leaders like Hafiz Saeed, Masood Azhar and Sayeed Salahudeen serious about it? Are the Maulvis serious about it? Not the least.

    If that had been the case, at least some of them would have raised storm about the treatment of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province of China. In the Xinjiang province, men cannot sport beard, women cannot wear burqas, officials cannot observe Ramzan, children cannot be named Mohammad, the concept of ‘halal’ has been banned and there is a massive anti-burial drive launched by Xi Jinping since 2012. The Chinese dispensation is of the belief that burials are the cause of shrinking agricultural land, thus impacting on food security.

    Why the Kashmiri leaders and others who espouse the jihadi cause in the subcontinent, silent about China’s setting up of re-education camps for Muslims. It is because they revel in the fact that China as Pakistan is antagonistic, adversarial or even inimical to Hindu majority India.

    The former PWD minister of J&K, Naeem Akhtar in an interview had said that the main player in J&K is China and JeM is the adopted child of that country. The Chinese are leveraging on JeM to keep India boxed in, so that the strategic alignment with the US is circumscribed. Pakistan as mentioned earlier vetoes all resolutions against China’s treatment of Uighur Muslims in 57-member OIC. The Kashmiri separatists therefore are religious hypocrites, who have two standards on Islam and jihad, i.e. one for India and another for China and Pakistan. Basically, Islam and Jihad is an instrumentality for the Kashmiri separatists and their allies to wreck India. This hypocrisy has reduced the Kashmir Valley into a moral waste land.

    As per a recent report in the Pakistan Newspaper, Dawn, about 70 Ahmediayas and Christians, who sought asylum in Thailand, are being deported. They complained of persecution in Pakistan. In all probability, they travelled through the sea route to Thailand. Why this dying desperation? Many Hazara Shias have perished in the mid-ocean, while escaping to Australia. The Pak state has driven out Shias, Ahamadis, Christians and Hindus. It is a consequence of Wahabisation of Pakistan. The same Wahabisation of Kashmir has driven out half a million Hindus from Kashmir Valley. The common factor is Wahabisation and Radicalisation.

    The Pakistan state is least ashamed out these minorities including Hindus leaving the country, but the Indian state is also not ashamed about Hindus being driven out from one of its own pieces of territory. The tragedy is that Pakistan is an unapologetic Sunni state and India prides in being a secular state.

    After having fought three wars and shed so much of blood of our men in uniform, with so much security forces around, if Hindus were driven out in their own country, then there are definitely grave inadequacies in our security thinking and security architecture. And that grave inadequacy is that we never devoted our energies or applied our mind on the ideology, which created Pakistan in 1947 and which now consumes Kashmir.

    During the Great Game, to cater the threat from Russia, the British had created a security architecture by dividing the Pashtun territory into several parts, i.e. Balochistan, NWFP and FATA. We on the other hand persist with an architecture, which allows anti-national forces living in the Valley, which is just seven percent of the area of J&K, to destabilize the entire country.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  7. #232
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,525
    Tough words for Pakistan: Introspection time for new government
    If US and Pakistan will not work on key issues like peace in Afghanistan, growing influence of China in Pakistan and bitter relations with India, tension between two countries will escalate over time, writes Khurram Shahzad for South Asia Monitor


    Takeaway -
    If US and Pakistan will not work on key issues like peace in Afghanistan, growing influence of China in Pakistan and bitter relations with India, tension between two countries will escalate over time. No arm twisting. Normalise relations (with India), expand cooperation and then work together in resolving the Afghan dispute, said a Pakistani expert in Washington, who did not wish to be identified, on the present state of US-Pakistan relations
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  8. #233
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,525
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  9. #234
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,525
    Indian Army asks Pakistan to take back bodies of intruders killed in Sunderbani sector

    Two heavily armed Pakistani intruders and three soldiers were killed on Sunday in the gunfight after the Army foiled an infiltration bid along the LoC.

    The intruders were believed to be members of a Border Action Team (BAT) comprising Pakistan Army jawans and trained terrorists, an Army officer said on condition of anonymity on Sunday.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  10. #235
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,525
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Pakistan Marble Helps Taliban Stay in Business
    By pravin in forum Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 18 Jul 08,, 02:41
  2. Pakistan marble helps Taliban stay in business
    By bolo121 in forum Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 16 Jul 08,, 11:30
  3. State Sponsored IV Drug Use - The Future of America
    By THL in forum International Economy
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 20 Oct 07,, 01:02
  4. State Terrorism?
    By Ray in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 24 Sep 05,, 05:45
  5. Pakistan's Role in State Sponsored International Terrorism
    By indianguy4u in forum Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03 Jun 05,, 11:47

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •