Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Pakistan Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Topic; Is Pakistan an ally or enemy?
Herald1234    1/12/2007 3:12:19 PM
"http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1247153,00.html" http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1247153,00.html Spy Chief Attacks Pakistan Updated: 10:37, Friday January 12, 2007 Al Qaeda leaders are hiding out in Pakistan where they are rebuilding the organisation, America's intelligence chief has warned. John Negroponte told the Senate Select Committee that Pakistan was the centre of the terror group's organisation. And he said the group's leaders were holed up in a secure compound in the country. He did not name Osama bin Laden or his deputy Ayman al Zawahri. Intelligence experts say bin Laden is probably hiding out in Pakistan's tribal regions or neighbouring districts of North West Frontier Province. Pakistan reacted angrily to Mr Negroponte's claims. "We have no such information nor has any such thing been communicated to us by any US authority," said Pakistan's military spokesman Major-General Shaukat Sultan. US-Pakistan relations have been strained in recent months by claims from American and Afghanistan that Islamabad is not doing enough to crack down on terrorism or stop al Qaeda fighters travelling to Afghanistan. A CIA-led attack last January by a drone aircraft in Pakistan's Bajaur tribal region was intended to target Zawahri. It did not kill Zawahri, though it possibly eliminated a handful of al Qaeda militants, along with 18 villagers. Meanwhile, militant leader and former Afghan prime minister Gulbuddin Hekmatyar said his fighters helped bin Laden escape US troops and the battle of Tora Bora five years. He said some of his fighters moved bin Laden, Zawahiri and other associates to "a safe place" where he met them later. ------------------------------ Simple enough. Given the common news mis-reporting on so many subjects, I would like to hear "informed" as opposed to "sensationalist" opinions on this subject. Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Herald1234    Working link;   1/12/2007 3:13:45 PM
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar    Red Team   1/12/2007 3:23:44 PM
Based on my read of the ISI and of Islamabad's close relationship with China I can only conclude that they are classified as "unfriendly".  While most will cite the islamic extremism - I look at the work of Dr. Kahn and of the Paki relationship with the PLA and North Korea - spreading nuclear weapons technology.  Keep in mind - it was Kahn who sold PRC a-bomb plans to Libya.  We know because our intell boys have the plans - complete with PLA blueprints.
 
Quote    Reply

chupooey    what do you call ally   1/18/2007 10:28:34 AM
well it depends what you call an ally? do you expect an ally to follow blindly without caring for own life, i am afraid there  wont be any allys around. even if you take the example of taliban and ISI in the older time. but if you consider ally to be practical enough and help you at good bargain, then pakistan is for sure an ally. its in coalitions interest to hold upto pakistan rather than confront her. i would here what the representative of pakistan in one of her breifing said, tell us how many of high profile targets did US or her colaitions caught in comparison to pakistan? i think more interesting question would be what options would the west have if they decide to leave pakistan aside? would they be able to stop the infiltration through durand line?
 
Quote    Reply

Agent47       2/5/2007 1:39:36 PM
Pakistan defeated Russia in Afghanistan due to wich 1. US bacame a sole superpower of the world. 2. Berlin wall fell and Socialist part of Germany was abolished( This was recognized by the Chancellor of Germany in a ceremony by handing over a piece of that wall to the President of Pakistan on which it was written "To whom who made the fist blow". 3. Iron Curtain between Socialist Eastern and Capitalist Western Europe was eliminated and Europe proceeded towards European Common Market in whcih whole of Eastern Europe has joined them. 4. Pakistan has lost more soldiers in battle against terrorists than the combined losses of NATO in Afghanistan. 5. Pakistan has handed over about 300 suspected terrorists to US and many are charged and tried within Pakistan. 6. Pakistan has changed all of it's laws who were facilitating extremists. 7. Pakistan has reformed it's educational istitution with the help of US to make the sellybus more enlightened. 8. Pakistan is fighting against each and every front against terrorists.
 
Quote    Reply

Vritra       2/5/2007 2:29:10 PM

4. Pakistan has lost more soldiers in battle against terrorists than the combined losses of NATO in Afghanistan.

5. Pakistan has handed over about 300 suspected terrorists to US and many are charged and tried within Pakistan.

6. Pakistan has changed all of it's laws who were facilitating extremists.

7. Pakistan has reformed it's educational istitution with the help of US to make the sellybus more enlightened.

8. Pakistan is fighting against each and every front against terrorists.


#4. The NATO armies in Afghanistan don't have to count dead terrorists and militants as their soldiers, hence their bodycount is much lower . On the other hand consider the kill-ratios of the NATO armies and their Afghan allies versus that of the Pakistani Army on its side of the border. All kidding aside (despite the truth in it), while Pakistani Army's sacrifices are well appreciated - with $3 billion worth of aid, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weaponry sold at cut-rate prices, massive Pakistani involvement in old Taliban and Kashmiri terrorist network being covered up in Western media etc - one cannot help but wonder why Pakistanis have been less than forthcoming on the intelligence and joint ops front?

Your foot-soldier sacrifice is respectable, but ultimately farcial - considering one B-52 with over-flight rights can easily achieve what your entire battalions struggle to do. If you think that impinges on your sovereignty. . . even that can be respected: Provide accurate intelligence on matters in your own country, they will be taken care off with least fall out, and then you keep your lips sealed. But Pakistani leadership is unable to do even this!

#5. Pakistan may have handed over 300 terrorists to the US, but how many of them have been let go?

#6. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan's efforts at changing laws that promote extremism is a start, but it should be a very fast start, shouldn't it? Seeing how Gen. Musharaff is tolerated in the democratic world only because he can pass such laws quite damn quickly. . . it brings us to the next question, what is Pakistan doing to enforce it? As the world sees it Pakistan has effectively ceeded control of Waziristan to the Taliban affiliated tribes by moving out its Army, i.e. there is no force for enforcing your laws.

#7. Pakistan always had access to modern and enlightened scholarship from even before Pakistan was founded - problem is that your pupils bounded for Lawrence College may adhere to the syllabus agreed with the US, but what are the steps being taken to see that pupils who would otherwise be bound for Afghanistan are taught the same?

#8. Yes, Pakistan is fighting against each and every front against the terrorists. Your use of the double-negative has more truth in it than you would have wished: By the looks of it it seems Pakistan doesnt have any graveyards, seeing how they keep their skeletons in every closet located on the frontlines of the anti-terrorism effort! Militarilly you have senior Pakistani NCOs and JCOs seconded to Taliban, intelligence-wise Taliban is almost entirely a creation of your ISI. . . and even as ISI is forced to dump its Talibani assests, DMI is picking them right up, nobody even wants to know how many other AQ Khan-style skeletons you have in nuclear/WMD front. So yes, Pakistanis have been running around barring every closet the anti-terrorist forces are trying to clean up.




 
Quote    Reply

Vritra       2/5/2007 2:46:26 PM


 i would here what the representative of pakistan in one of her breifing said, tell us how many of high profile targets did US or her colaitions caught in comparison to pakistan? i think more interesting question would be what options would the west have if they decide to leave pakistan aside? would they be able to stop the infiltration through durand line?


If Pakistan was a free and open society or if the foreign journalists there weren't such wussies, the logical question would have been how many high profile targets did the US or its Coalition partners willing let slip in comparison to Pakistani security and intelligence forces? But of course Pakistan is neither a free nor an open society, and foreign journalists who do pursue the links between Pakistani Establishment and the terrorists end up being halalified (Daniel Pearl's fate, for example). Meanwhile, please spare us the B$ which wouldn't work on a perceptive 12 year old.

The whole point of deciding to "leave pakistan aside" would be the flexibility to engage in hot-pursuit of Taliban upto operationally permissible depths into Pakistan. That is the one big option. The question you should be asking is, "Is it better to have them do so with some cordial treaty (as in Law of the Seas) or should Pak procrastinate enough to hope that its Fabian strategy of backing both US and Taliban pays of with US friendship in the short-run and Taliban friendship in the long run?"
 
Quote    Reply

chupooey    A bad potter always quarrel with his tools   2/6/2007 12:40:52 PM
 

The whole point of deciding to "leave pakistan aside" would be the flexibility to engage in hot-pursuit of Taliban upto operationally permissible depths into Pakistan. That is the one big option. The question you should be asking is, "Is it better to have them do so with some cordial treaty (as in Law of the Seas) or should Pak procrastinate enough to hope that its Fabian strategy of backing both US and Taliban pays of with US friendship in the short-run and Taliban friendship in the long run?" 

 

If you recall your memories and listen to what those free journalists of the free nations have been saying, you would realize that the “operationally permissible depth into Pakistan” already exists in case, so called reasonably reliable information is there. It has never resulted any thing other than killing innocent children and people, in turn  fuelling the locals against the Americans . And in 5 years now the situation has reached to a level that now you have Indigenous talibans in the tribal area, which are not foreigners and enjoy the support of locals there.

 

As far as long term choosing between talibans and Americans is concerned, why would Pakistan be tempted to opt for US, we were deserted by her in the past,  leaving all the mess for us to cope with. Talibans are reality, they were the rulers before and seem to be the future one as well. US wont stay in Afghanistan for ever but we will have to live with our neighbour. And every country would like to have good relations with her neighbour.

 
Quote    Reply

Vritra       2/6/2007 1:45:12 PM

If you recall your memories and listen to what those free journalists of the free nations have been saying, you would realize that the “operationally permissible depth into Pakistan” already exists in case, so called reasonably reliable information is there. It has never resulted any thing other than killing innocent children and people, in turn  fuelling the locals against the Americans . And in 5 years now the situation has reached to a level that now you have Indigenous talibans in the tribal area, which are not foreigners and enjoy the support of locals there.

As far as long term choosing between talibans and Americans is concerned, why would Pakistan be tempted to opt for US, we were deserted by her in the past,  leaving all the mess for us to cope with. Talibans are reality, they were the rulers before and seem to be the future one as well. US wont stay in Afghanistan for ever but we will have to live with our neighbour. And every country would like to have good relations with her neighbour.



I could debate your assertions on non-existent trans-border operations by NATO and Afghan forces, but why should I discuss anything at all with someone who obviously favours the Talibani forces? Among professed allies one could discuss and debate tactics and policies. . . but what can one do with soneone who cannot even consisently keep up with his charade of being allies?
 
Quote    Reply

chupooey       2/7/2007 5:41:11 PM
I think you got me wrong there, i am not supporting Talibans nor americans. I am against making enemies next to us, for some one who while sitting hundreds of miles away want to call big shots. is not it strange that every body is very vocal about the groups active in pak side of border but what about those who are not hiding but ruling in afghanistan and not supporting but harbouring talibans. what kind of acess restriction exists there?
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics