Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US plan to improve Afghan intelligence operations branded a $457m failure

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SP Dawar’s murder in Afghanistan raises many questions: ISPR

    I smell something. What is this stink? We all know what it is, don't we?

    Check out the original link. Now compare the picture of that slimy terrorist Ghafoor to that of Joseph Goebbels. What does one see? A chubby and moustached Goebbels born again as Asif Ghafoor.
    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! || I am a far left millennial!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
      SP Dawar’s murder in Afghanistan raises many questions: ISPR

      I smell something. What is this stink? We all know what it is, don't we?

      Check out the original link. Now compare the picture of that slimy terrorist Ghafoor to that of Joseph Goebbels. What does one see? A chubby and moustached Goebbels born again as Asif Ghafoor.
      You're suggesting a frame up ?

      Why take an SP to Afgahnistan though

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
        You're suggesting a frame up ?

        Why take an SP to Afgahnistan though
        What is not a frame up in Af-Pak region by the PA and ISI combine? When every other country is pointing fingers at terroristan, propaganda diversion gives the PA/ISI ammo to mis-guide their common abduls - look it's the Afghanis and the Indians who're behind this killing. I don't see any respite from their terrorist proxies in Kashmir. It's common sense. Let them prove otherwise.
        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! || I am a far left millennial!

        Comment


        • Trump fires off a new tirade at Pakistan

          President Donald Trump on Sunday defended his administration’s decision to stop hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Pakistan, saying the country does not do “a damn thing” for the US.

          He also claimed that Islamabad had helped Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden hide near the garrison city.

          Trump also defended his administration’s decision to pull hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Islamabad in an interview with Fox News.
          Host Chris Wallace asked Trump: “Wouldn’t it have been nice if we got Osama bin Laden a lot sooner than that, wouldn’t it have been nice?

          You know, living — think of this — living in Pakistan, beautifully in Pakistan in what I guess they considered a nice mansion, I don’t know, I’ve seen nicer. But living in Pakistan right next to the military academy, everybody in Pakistan knew he was there,” Trump said, referring to bin Laden and his former compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
          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! || I am a far left millennial!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
            You're suggesting a frame up ?

            Why take an SP to Afgahnistan though
            Tahir Dawar's killing hints at NDS, RAW involvement

            Tahir Dawar was a supporter of the PTM, as a result, his abduction and killing are being used to take mileage by the Pashtoon Tahafuz Movement.
            LMAO!!! So, very, predictable. The truth came out while weaving another conspiracy theory. Utter fail guys. There's still time, stop with this policy of state-sponsored terrorism.
            Last edited by Oracle; 19 Nov 18,, 03:30.
            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! || I am a far left millennial!

            Comment


            • No change there, the Paks cannot expect much from this president for the rest of his term(s).

              Comment


              • 'We will do what is best for our people, our interests': PM Khan fires back after Trump tweets

                Best interests of Pakistan is continuing the policy of state-sponsored terrorism. Easy.

                Not a single Pakistani was involved in 9/11, these terrorist thugs say. Okay, so, what about the then ISI Chief Ahmed?

                'Appeasement does not work with US': Shireen Mazari claps back at Trump over tirade against Pakistan

                The whole world knows how your country treats its minorities, so do us all a favour, and STFU. Bloody witch.
                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! || I am a far left millennial!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                  The whole world knows how your country treats its minorities
                  Every one of our neighbours has a problem with minorities. Let's go around the dial

                  Pakistan : couldn't accept a Bangla PM, Ahmadiyas etc

                  Nepal : wanted to disenfranchise Madhesis. Reduce them to non-citizens. Leading to us to advocating they be included in their 6th attempt at a constitution. Needless to say they did not like this big brother like behaviour and hence a setback in India - Nepal relations.

                  China : Tibetans & Uighurs

                  Bhutan : Already went further than the Nepalis, disenfranchised (hand over your papers, destroy them, then ask to prove citizenship). Result is deport 600k people of Nepali descent in the 80s as they couldn't be trusted. The monarchy feared a Maoist rebellion.

                  Burma : Rohingyas presently and historically people of Indian & Chinese decent, ongoing. The latter two arrive with nothing and within a generation are more successful than the locals thereby earning their resentment by acquiring resources.

                  Bangladesh & Afghanistan : the number of non-muslims in these countries meaning Hindus, Sikhs Buddhists has decreased over the decades

                  Sri Lanka : Tamils
                  Last edited by Double Edge; 20 Nov 18,, 17:43.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                    Every one of our neighbours has a problem with minorities. Let's go around the dial

                    Pakistan : couldn't accept a Bangla PM, Ahmadiyas etc

                    Nepal : wanted to disenfranchise Madhesis. Reduce them to non-citizens. Leading to us to advocating they be included in their 6th attempt at a constitution. Needless to say they did not like this big brother like behaviour and hence a setback in India - Nepal relations.

                    China : Tibetans & Uighurs

                    Bhutan : Already went further than the Nepalis, disenfranchised (hand over your papers, destroy them, then ask to prove citizenship). Result is deport 600k people of Nepali descent in the 80s as they couldn't be trusted. The monarchy feared a Maoist rebellion.

                    Burma : Rohingyas presently and historically people of Indian & Chinese decent, ongoing. The latter two arrive with nothing and within a generation are more successful than the locals thereby earning their resentment by acquiring resources.

                    Bangladesh & Afghanistan : the number of non-muslims in these countries meaning Hindus, Sikhs Buddhists has decreased over the decades

                    Sri Lanka : Tamils
                    Let's go in brief at each country, geo-politically.

                    Pakistan = Terrorist state. Basket-case. Dictatorship. Deep State (PA & ISI). Religious sh!thole. Worse than Somalia. PA = Mercenaries for hire. Continuously ranked in top 10 failed states for the last couple of years. Nothing good has come out of it, nothing good will come out of it. Soviets learnt it the Pakistani way, Americans too are learning it the Pakistani way. India, as always, is content with just screaming. India can absorb the minority population consisting of Hindus, Christians, and any other.

                    Nepal = Extended Indian land. India puts up a barrier in Indo-Nepal border restricting Nepalese from entering India for jobs, business, education and healthcare, stops aid, Nepal crumbles. China as usual won't accept Nepalese into their country (what we're witnessing now is the great Chinese migration into Pakistan, Africa etc), they have to take into account their subjects first. Ofcourse China would like to colonize Nepal with their debt-trap diplomacy. Madhesis are India's aces in controlling that poor, ungrateful, communist country. Need to keep Indian control over their FP.

                    China = First let them have a multi-party democracy in place. China of today is a replica of the monarchy they had earlier. Repressive, authoritarian. Basket-case, with the only exception that their economy is doing well. For how long?

                    Bhutan = Extended Indian land. Indian protectorate. Indian aid, army and currency in full swing. Swing state in preventing further Chinese transgressions into Indian land. Important piece of real-estate in geopolitical terms, since Tibet is already within the Chinese ambit. Have to be protected at great cost.

                    Burma = Buffer state. Army for hire. Militants too, for hire. Indian influence more than Chinese. Route for smuggling of terrorists, narcotics, fake currency, arms into India, supported by the Chinese. Rohingyas are being ethnically cleansed, but India is silent. Why? National interest is paramount. India can absorb the minority population consisting of Hindus, Christians, and any other.

                    Bangladesh = Pro-India, Sheikh Hasina Government. National interests dictate her government continues. Khaleda Zia (BNP) government is a nightmare as far as Pak influencing policy of terrorism and interference in India's North-East. India can absorb the minority population consisting of Hindus, Christians, and any other.

                    Afghanistan = Friendly, as long as Americans troops are there. Future relations will be dictated by Iran, Russia vs KSA, Pak, if the Americans were to withdraw. They hate Pakistan, more than they hate the Taliban. India can absorb the minority population consisting of Hindus, Christians, and any other.

                    Sri-Lanka = Extended Indian land. Their support for the Pak Navy during the 1971 war started one of the most bloody chapters of their recent history. The LTTE. It seems, they haven't learnt their lesson and are found gambling from time to time. Will be a Chinese colony in a short time if India doesn't act according to its interests. Incase of a conflict between the Elephant and the Dragon, the island would disappear.

                    India ain't doing well w.r.t minorities either. We need to do more. Minorities are our own, Indians first, be it Muslims, Christians or any other religious or ethnic group(s).
                    Last edited by Oracle; 24 Nov 18,, 05:42.
                    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! || I am a far left millennial!

                    Comment


                    • Despite expectations, Pakistan gets just $1.5b in foreign loans

                      ISLAMABAD: The disbursements of foreign loans still remains low, as Pakistan has received only $1.5 billion in the first four months of this fiscal year, amid expectations that inflows may improve in the coming months on back of support from China in shape of foreign commercial loans.

                      From July through October of fiscal year 2018-19, international creditors disbursed $1.46 billion loans, according to officials of the Ministry of Finance. Last month, Pakistan received another short-term commercial loan facility of $160 million, this time from Dubai Islamic Bank (DIB), said the officials.

                      It was the second commercial deal in last as many months. Earlier, Pakistan contracted $170 million commercial loan with a consortium led by Credit Suisse AG. The commercial loans are becoming expensive due to increase in London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor) interest rates. Most of these loans are signed at floating Libor plus 3% rates, said the officials.

                      As against $1.46 billion worth disbursements in the first four months of this fiscal year, the lenders had given $2.3 billion in the same period of last year, reflecting a reduction of nearly 37%. The $1.46 billion loans are exclusive of $1 billion Saudi Arabian facility that Pakistan received this month. But this will not be reflected in November’s disbursement data, as the money will be placed with the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) as deposit.

                      The foreign loans are not sufficient to meet Pakistan’s growing financing needs. The finance ministry authorities are expecting a boost in inflows in the next couple of months, as the modalities for Chinese commercial loans are being discussed, said the officials.

                      China has not yet extended any commercial facility in the current fiscal year. In past two fiscal years, Chinese financial institutions had provided nearly $4.8 billion commercial loans, excluding the SAFE Deposits.

                      The Ministry of Finance and the SBP have jointly assessed Pakistan’s external debt repayments in the current fiscal year at $11.7 billion. About $7.7 billion of these loans will mature in the second half of the year. The government’s efforts to secure a bailout package from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have so far remained unsuccessful.

                      In October alone, the lenders disbursed $469.2 million, including $160 million in commercial loans. Bilateral and multilateral lenders did not release funds for a majority of projects funded by them due to slow progress on these schemes. The cut on Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP) is affecting the overall disbursements against these projects due to a lack of local funding component.

                      However, China in October released another $102 million for the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project, taking its contribution to $528 million in the past four months. In this fiscal year, China has given $266.8 million for Sukkur-Multan motorway, $65.7 million for Havelian-Thakot project of CPEC and $185 million for the Lahore Orange Line project.

                      The $528-million Chinese loans were equal to 36% of the total economic assistance that Pakistan received from July through October, according to the officials. The multilateral lenders provided $470 million or nearly one-third of the total loans. The commercial loans made 27% of the total disbursements.

                      Amid a steep decline in the foreign currency reserves, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) government has been trying to persuade Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and China to deposit money in the SBP’s reserves for soothing panicked markets. Saudi Arabia was the first country that promised to give a bailout package worth $6 billion to help Pakistan avert a default-like situation. Saudi Arabia also gave $16.5 million for project financing in the first four months.

                      Loan disbursements by multilateral creditors remained very low in the first four months. The country received $139.4 million from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) as against $160 million in the last fiscal year. The World Bank disbursed $79.3 million as against $146 million in the same period of the previous year. The Islamic Development Bank disbursed $279 million during the first four months including $273 million on commercial terms for oil payments.
                      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! || I am a far left millennial!

                      Comment


                      • Pakistani-born US woman pleads guilty to bitcoin fraud to help IS

                        Sometimes I don't understand the mentality of this fringe group of Islamic radicals. One lives in a developed country, probably a very good life and all, yet acts like this. Should be their initial years of Jihad grooming in Pakistan.
                        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! || I am a far left millennial!

                        Comment


                        • At least 10 killed in attack at UK security firm's Kabul compound
                          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! || I am a far left millennial!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                            Pakistani-born US woman pleads guilty to bitcoin fraud to help IS

                            Sometimes I don't understand the mentality of this fringe group of Islamic radicals. One lives in a developed country, probably a very good life and all, yet acts like this. Should be their initial years of Jihad grooming in Pakistan.
                            That's the power of false narratives and propaganda.

                            Comment


                            • The interview many have been waiting for.

                              Pakistani leader to the U.S.: We’re not your ‘hired gun’ anymore

                              ISLAMABAD

                              Imran Khan, a onetime cricket star, led the life of a glamorous playboy before he turned to Pakistani politics. This summer, after years in the opposition and then as a member of the coalition government in Islamabad, he finally captured the premiership. He inherits it with a daunting list of challenges for his country, including poverty, terrorism and corruption. This past week, President Trump — who has traded Twitter barbs with Khan and cut military assistance to Pakistan — asked him to help bring the Afghan Taliban to peace talks. On the veranda outside his home here, Khan gave his first foreign interview as prime minister to The Washington Post’s Lally Weymouth. Edited excerpts follow.


                              Q. What are you planning to do about your country's relationship with the U.S., which has been deteriorating and has involved a social-media war with the president? He wrote in January that "the United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!"

                              A. It was not really a Twitter war, it was just setting the record right. [Khan wrote on the site this fall: “He needs to be informed abt historical facts. Pak has suffered enough fighting US’s war. Now we will do what is best for our people & our interests.”] The exchange was about being blamed for deeply flawed U.S. policies — the military approach to Afghanistan.

                              Q. He wasn't blaming you. He was blaming your predecessors.

                              A. No, he was saying Pakistan was the reason for these sanctuaries [for Taliban leaders]. There are no sanctuaries in Pakistan.

                              Q. Every U.S. official says there are Taliban leaders living in Pakistan.

                              A. When I came into power, I got a complete briefing from the security forces. They said that we have time and time again asked the Americans, “Can you tell us where the sanctuaries are, and we will go after them?” There are no sanctuaries in Pakistan.

                              Q. Do you believe that?

                              A. We have 2.7 million Afghan refugees still living in Pakistan. They live in big refugee camps.

                              Q. But the Americans aren't stupid, come on.

                              A. But where are these people? Our border between Pakistan and Afghanistan has the greatest amount of surveillance. The U.S. has satellites and drones. These people crossing would be seen.

                              Q. The U.S. government is saying it would just like Pakistan to cut it out.

                              A. First, there are no sanctuaries. If there are a few hundred, maybe 2,000 to 3,000 Taliban who move into Pakistan, they could easily move into these Afghan refugee camps.

                              Q. President Trump wrote you a letter this week asking for your assistance in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table. What is your reply?

                              A. Peace in Afghanistan is in Pakistan’s interest. We will do everything.

                              Q. You'll put pressure on the Taliban to get them to come?

                              A. We will try our best. Putting pressure on the Taliban is easier said than done. Bear in mind that about 40 percent of Afghanistan is now out of the government’s hands.

                              Q. American officials say that Pakistan is harboring leaders of the Taliban.

                              A. I have never understood these accusations. Pakistan had nothing to do with 9/11. Al-Qaeda was in Afghanistan. No Pakistani was involved. And yet Pakistan was asked to participate in the U.S. war. There were a lot of people in Pakistan who opposed it, including me. In the 1980s, we collaborated with the U.S. in the Soviet jihad there. Then, in 1989, when the Soviets packed up and left, the U.S. did, too. Pakistan was left with militant groups and 4 million Afghan refugees. If we had stayed neutral after 9/11, I reckon we would have saved ourselves from the devastation that took place afterward. By becoming the front-line state for the U.S. in the war on terror, this country went through hell. Over 80,000 people died in the war, and estimates are that over $150 billion was lost in the economy. Investors wouldn’t come, nor would sports teams. Pakistan was known as the most dangerous place in the world.

                              Q. Nevertheless, we are where we are. It appears the Americans want peace talks now in Afghanistan to bring about a settlement so the U.S. troops can leave. Do you want to see them go?

                              A. I talked for years about how there was no military solution in Afghanistan, and they called me “Taliban Khan.” If you did not agree with the U.S. policy, you were [thought to be] anti-American. Now I’m happy that everyone realizes there is only a political solution . . . From Pakistan’s point of view, we do not want the Americans to leave Afghanistan in a hurry like they did in 1989.

                              Q. Because?

                              A. The last thing we want is to have chaos in Afghanistan. There should be a settlement this time. In 1989, what happened was the Taliban emerged out of the chaos.

                              Q. There are not many American troops in Afghanistan now.

                              A. Yes, but the Afghan army is being supported by U.S. dollars. The Taliban clearly realize that for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, they will need American help.

                              Q. You get the feeling from Trump's tweets that he's done with Afghanistan.

                              A. This should have happened a long time ago.

                              Q. Do you have a vision of what you want Pakistan's relationship with the United States to be? Or are you trying to hedge your bets by growing closer to China?

                              A. I would never want to have a relationship where Pakistan is treated like a hired gun — given money to fight someone else’s war. We should never put ourselves in this position again. It not only cost us human lives, devastation of our tribal areas, but it also cost us our dignity. We would like a proper relationship with the U.S.

                              Q. What does that mean?

                              A. For instance, our relationship with China is not one-dimensional. It’s a trade relationship between two countries. We want a similar relationship with the U.S.

                              Q. Some people think you're trying to hedge your bets using China.

                              A. The U.S. has basically pushed Pakistan away —

                              Q. You've been very anti-U.S. over the years.

                              A. If you do not agree with U.S. policies, it does not mean you’re anti-American. This is a very imperialistic approach: “You’re either with me or against me.”

                              Q. You have made statements about the U.S. drone attacks.

                              A. Drone attacks! Who would not be against drone attacks? Who would allow a drone attack in their country when, with one attack, you kill one terrorist and 10 friends and neighbors? Has there ever been a case of a country being bombed by its own ally? Of course I objected to it. All it did was create more anti-Americanism.

                              Q. You also did not approve of the U.S. killing Osama bin Laden. You called it a "coldblooded murder."

                              A. It wasn’t killing Osama bin Laden — it was not trusting Pakistan. It was humiliating that we were losing our soldiers and civilians and [suffering terrorist] bomb attacks because we were participating in the U.S. war, and then our ally did not trust us to kill bin Laden. They should have tipped off Pakistan. We did not know whether we were a friend or a foe.

                              Q. Would you have been okay with it if the U.S. had tipped off Pakistan?

                              A. Of course . . . I don’t know where this came from, “coldblooded murder.”

                              Q. That's what you were reported as saying in the media.

                              A. I don’t remember that, but I do remember that not just me, most Pakistanis felt deeply humiliated that we were not trusted, implying that we were complicit in it.

                              Q. Do you think Pakistan's relationship with the U.S. should warm up?

                              A. Who would not want to be friends with a superpower?

                              Q. To be honest with you, officials across the board — Democrats and Republicans — agree with Trump about the fact that the past Pakistani governments have lied to them.

                              A. They’ve been misinformed. Is it possible that the greatest military machine in the history of mankind — 150,000 NATO troops with the best equipment and over $1 trillion — are they saying that just a few thousand Pakistani insurgents are the reason they didn’t win in Afghanistan? The United States expected Pakistan to take on the Afghan Taliban. But the Afghan Taliban were not hitting Pakistan. Tehrik-e-Taliban [a Pakistani branch of the Taliban] and al-Qaeda were hitting us.

                              Q. Recently, your government arrested the head of the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) party, Khadim Hussain Rizvi. He elicited riots in the streets after your Supreme Court overturned the sentence of a Christian woman sentenced to death on a blasphemy charge. Why did you order the arrest, and why do you think it's important?

                              A. It’s a straightforward thing. I had gone on television and warned everyone that we will stand by the Supreme Court verdict. If you don’t stand by what the Supreme Court says, then there’s no state left. The head of the TLP then passed a death sentence on the Supreme Court judges and kept saying that they should be killed.

                              Q. Your predecessors left you in a terrible financial situation — your country is running a serious current account deficit.

                              A. In 2013, when the previous government came to power, the current account deficit was $2.5 billion . When we came to power in 2018, it was $19 billion — a huge deficit, especially in a country with falling exports. The immediate thing has been stabilizing the economy.

                              Q. After your election, you started traveling to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and China.

                              A. We needed support for propping up our foreign currency reserves.

                              Q. You got some money on your travels?

                              A. We got some.

                              Q. The media reports that Saudi Arabia gave you $3 billion in cash and $3 billion in oil credits.

                              A. Yes. We have received some from all three countries.

                              Q. For the UAE and China, you can't find figures.

                              A. Those governments want to keep it confidential. We raised money, but we are talking to the IMF [International Monetary Fund]. We do not want to have conditions imposed on us which would cause more unemployment and inflation.

                              Q. Are you talking about austerity?

                              A. Some of the IMF conditions are likely to harm the common man — that’s what I’m worried about.

                              Q. Do you think the negotiations will work out?

                              A. We have two scenarios: one with the IMF and one without.

                              Q. Isn't it unrealistic to say "without the IMF"?

                              A. In the last 30 years, we’ve had 16 IMF programs. If we go with the IMF, we will make sure this is the last time. Pakistan has never made the structural changes that are needed. Now we have embarked on structural reforms. Already exports are picking up, remittances are going up. We need higher exports, and we are curbing our imports. Already, we have investors coming into Pakistan.

                              Q. Don't you need to make more people pay taxes?

                              A. We are making major reforms in our tax collection — getting more people to pay taxes. We want people to be able to make money here. In the 1960s, we were growing fast, and then in the 1970s, [prime minister Zulfiqar Ali] Bhutto came in with a socialist program. Somehow the mind-set became anti-wealth-creation. This has persisted, sadly, in our bureaucracy and in our political class. We want to make Pakistan an easy place to invest in so that people can utilize our young population.

                              Q. Do you see signs of direct foreign investment?

                              A. Yes, Exxon has come back to Pakistan after 27 years, and they’re doing a big exploration for us. PepsiCo has put extra investments in Pakistan.

                              Q. Why?

                              A. I guess because we are a clean government. We won’t be asking them for money.

                              Q. You founded your party, but it took you 22 years to reach the top.

                              A. It was a long struggle. For 15 years, it was a very small party. I had only one seat in Parliament. Then about seven years ago, suddenly it was an idea whose time had come.

                              Q. Why did you persist? You were a cricket star, and you had a great life in England.

                              A. Because I am part of the first generation of Pakistanis who grew up very proud of our country. Pakistan in the 1960s was an example for the developing world. Then a calamity hit us in 1971, and Pakistan broke up [after Bangladesh won its independence]. From the mid-1980s onwards, we were hit with growing corruption. Corruption goes into megaprojects which have mega-kickbacks. When your political leadership makes money, it cannot park the money in the country because it will be visible. [Past leaders] took that money out of the country, which means the country ends up getting short of foreign exchange. Once your leadership starts making money, it goes right down to every level.

                              Q. How do you reverse that?

                              A. My struggle was all about fighting corruption. Corruption you fight from the top, then you build strong state institutions.

                              Q. You threw out all sorts of gestures to India shortly after you came to office, but India dismissed them.

                              A. I know, because India has elections coming up. The ruling party has an anti-Muslim, anti-Pakistan approach. They rebuffed all my overtures.

                              Q. India really wants to see the perpetrators of the 2008 Mumbai bombing prosecuted. The mastermind, Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, a leader of the terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba, was released on bail in Pakistan while a nine-year trial has dragged on for six other suspects, with no results.

                              A. We also want something done about the bombers of Mumbai. I have asked our government to find out the status of the case. Resolving that case is in our interest because it was an act of terrorism. I have opened a visa-free peace corridor with India called Kartarpur [so that Indian Sikhs can visit a holy shrine in Pakistan]. Let’s hope that after the election is over, we can again resume talks with India.

                              Q. Your main aim is to eliminate poverty in your country?

                              A. I want to make Pakistan an equitable, just society. I believe in a welfare state. I would be on the opposite side of President Donald Trump in terms of economic policy, probably closer to Senator Bernie Sanders.

                              Q. How were your views formed?

                              A. I went as an 18-year-old to play cricket in England. It was the first time I saw a welfare state. It cared for the underprivileged, for the people who can’t compete in the race.
                              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! || I am a far left millennial!

                              Comment


                              • Dehradun: Afghan boy who saw close relatives being beheaded by Taliban graduates from IMA

                                Click image for larger version

Name:	1.png
Views:	1
Size:	166.0 KB
ID:	1477748

                                This young lad and many others like him are the future keepers of Afghanistan. But without proper fighting equipments, they're still blunt when it comes to attacking and defeating Pak sponsored terrorism in Afghanistan.
                                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! || I am a far left millennial!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X