Pakistan getting paid to (kill its own people)

reply to post by jam321

---

It wouldn't be wise for America to come to NZ just to bring a murderer to justice and in consequence thousands of others die. I would fight for justice. Especially if the NZ government stated they would hand him over if the US brought evidence.

Hey Ooz, maybe instead of paying them up front we should go with PayAsYouGo plan, kinda like you probably have on your cellphone. They send us dead Terrorists, we give them a check for a few thousand bucks.

Anyone can say they have a right to fight for their cause, country, religion, whatever. Proves what?

Do you then also acknowledge the U.S. right to fight the terrorists when THEY are the ones coming across the borders?

Warning: hypocrisy alert ...

Uh, anyone remember what life in Afghanistan was like under the Taliban? The burquas, the killings in the stadiums for sharia infractions? The west has involved itself in other countries before when the situation for the local population was nowhere near that bad. IMO, the country was "destabilized" long before the U.S. showed up.

'Innocent until proven guilty', everyone has that right, Taliban asked for evidence.

Get real

[edit on 8-10-2009 by oozyism]

reply to post by SLAYER69

---

Most of the Pakistan's ISI as well as military are long time allies and support the terrorists to a great deal. They would never kill their own people as they need them the most. All that they would do is kill many of their civilians as well as moderate muslims so that the Elites in Pakistan can be in good terms with the US, make some money out of it and make claims of fighting terrorists. This is something that has been coming out of whistle blowers from their own governments.

Pakistan's Role in fight against terrorism



Source - en.wikipedia.org...

The ISI and fight against terror



Source - www.cfr.org...

reply to post by centurion1211

---

Now we will never know will we, if the Taliban had a history of stalling then I would understand, but seriously you don't just make millions of assumptions to demonize your enemy?

You probably think the Taliban is the anti-Christ see how easy it is to make assumptions

More lolies for you..

Clear something up for me...

Why is it we would need to demonize our enemies? Isn't them having declared themselves to be our enemies demonization enough?

I can't kill a skunk any deader just because it smells worse.

reply to post by nenothtu

---

No the demonization is not only in the West but also in Muslim countries where they have support. The only place where the America propaganda hasn't reached is the tribal areas where there is no TV. Every house in Kabul has TVs these days, even massive dish for more channels.

People who under estimate propaganda are those who are affected by it.

And keep with the flow

"Now we will never know will we, if the Taliban had a history of stalling then I would understand, but seriously you don't just make millions of assumptions to demonize your enemy?

You probably think the Taliban is the anti-Christ see how easy it is to make assumptions

More lolies for you.. "

[edit on 10-10-2009 by oozyism]

Anyway, getting back on Topic.

1.Is Pakistan getting paid to kill it's own people?
No, they are not.

2.What will the money be used for?
To fund terrorism against India and USA in Afghanistan backed by ISI.

3.why the pakistani millitary is oppossing the US aid?
The aid carries a clause that Pakistan has to show proof they are actually taking action against terrorist. Clause also states they have to stop supporting Al qaeda and Lashkar e Taiba which are funded by Pakistani Millitary. Another thing the clause states is to dismantle the infrastructure of these terrorist organisations.

4. But with US aid they will give bodies of terrorist, right?
Wrong, as Pakistani millitary doesnt allow any media in Swat so all the news is filtered thru them. It'll be just their word that the body is of a terrorist. This is not new as it happened when Musharraf was in power though this whole arrangement was kept secret. If you search you will find many articles that Musharraf was being paid for every body he gives to US.

5. What does Pakistani millitary wants?
They want no clauses attached to the aid, so they are free to use it as they want like happened previously (In Bush time and before). They dont want any accountability attached to it.
Secondly, Pakistani millitary is demanding the "Drone" technology from US. If this technology gets in millitary hands of Pakistan and ISI then god help India and american soldiers in Afghanistan.






[edit on 10-10-2009 by December_Rain]

Is it REALLY "demonization" if you're reporting facts? If you AREN'T reporting facts, wouldn't the people on the ground, right there, in the thick of it be aware of that? I mean, all they have to do is look around them for confirmation or denial, right?



I must not be all that affected by YOUR propoganda, because I realize the danger of it to a worldwide audience who AREN'T on the ground there to make their own estimate of the situation. I don't, however, think it's terribly effective against those of us in a position to know better.

Which is why I counter it, and then laugh hard when you have to sidestep the counter and move on to another outrageous claim, or more usually fall back to a position that you already know to be untenable.



Hmmm... It appears that "demonization" of the enemy WAS the flow. You might have missed it, but that's what I WAS discussing.



No, I think ISLAM is the "spirit of the antichrist". The Taliban are just it's TOOLS.

I didn't used to think that way, until the TOOLS took to the field.

But religion isn't the subject of this thread, so your mention of the antichrist really has no bearing on it.



Thank you... I think.

[edit on 2009/10/10 by nenothtu]

Normally, I can find NOTHING in your posts that I can agree with. I find myself in the uncomfortable position of being forced to agree with this statement. I have to wonder why you've suddenly changed your tack.



Ah. It begins to get a bit clearer. You appear to not want the money to go to Pakistan, for some unfathomable reason. I say unfathomable, because your previous posts are all about supporting the enemy. I have to wonder why you'd suddenly want their support cut off, if this chain of custody for the money is valid (which it may very well be). I would think you'd be overjoyed to see the Taliban kill a few Americans using their own money.

Then I notice that reports of Taliban activity from Pakistan this morning indicate 3 major incidents of Taliban activity AGAINST PAKISTAN in the last 24 hours, one of which (Pakistani military being held hostage by the Taliban at GHQ) is still ongoing. Could it be that there's a slim possibility that ISI WON'T give the money to a pack of curs who are biting the hand that feeds them, and instead MAY use it to rid the planet of them?



I dunno, sounds reasonable to me, from my slanted perspective. If I pay someone to eliminate a pack of feral dogs, I'd sort of like to have evidence that the job is being done, and they aren't just feeding the dogs instead.

Now, to be honest, Pakistan IS free to reject the money, as they appear to have done, and go it alone. I can sort of see where that will get them, but it ain't my problem. The money was offered. If they don't want it, I can always use it to put a pool in my back yard.



I dunno, again. I have a friend who travelled to Swat last March, but since he isn't media, I reckon I can't trust his first hand accounts, even though he's a non-military Pakistani.

Pity.



Sounds about right, especially if ISI is doing any voting in it. They've ALWAYS wanted money for nothing and kicks for free. As I recall, ISI used to keep a pretty good chunk of the money we sent to them, through Saudi intermediaries, for the benefit of the mujahideen during the Soviet War.

Handling fees, I guess.

That's why we had to put a couple of boots on the ground there, to make sure the muj were getting the equipment we sent, and knew what to do with it, and that ISI wasn't just keeping it in their own back yards.



Those drones aren't all THAT bad, but I can see why America would refuse to provide them for ISI to control. S'ok, like I said before, Pakistan is free to reject the aid if it doesn't include everything they want, and go it alone. personally, If I were in dire straights, I'd take what I could get, and run with it, and do the job it's for - that benefits BOTH parties, given the current climate there.

But that's just me.

Besides, I bet the US won't have any trouble finding other uses for the money.



[edit on 2009/10/10 by nenothtu]

No I have not changed my track at all, but you seem to have goofed up about what I was saying. Is US paying money to Pakistan to kill it's own people as the OP subject states? My answer is no, US is not paying money to Pakistan to kill it's own people but to kill terrorist but that does not mean Pakistan will really kill the 'real' terrorist.


Yes you got this correct I don't want US to aid Pakistan at all because as "always" that money will find it's way in hands of Al queda, Lashkar e taiba and other terrorist organisations operating from inside Pakistan backed by Pakistani millitary and ISI. It's no secret to anyone who knows even a bit about the situation there who gave birth to these organisations and who controls these organisations. No amount of clause of screening can stop a huge aid getting dissolved quickly in hands of ISI. But this time US made clauses and only promised to give a specific amount of aid each year instead of alltogether the reason why millitary is so riled up alongwith other clauses.

Yes it's no surprise during "time of aid" such frequency in attacks increases to show how desperately aid is required.


Definately its is reasonable. The US did correct thing to add clauses to it but somehow as in previous cases no amount of clauses or screening will ensure the money is being spend for the purpose it is being given.


Yes it's a pity no independent observer or media is allowed in Swat during the time of "intense fighting" to verify the claims of Pakistani millitary. A quick search "independent observer barred from swat by pakistani millitary" and check your results.


Exactly what I am saying.


Perhaps you dont realise how many times Pakistan has asked for this drone tech..do some search you'll get the answer. If they get it, they would very easily monitor Afghan & Indian border to locate American/Indian troops and assist terrorist organisations with the movements. That's why it's dangerous in their hands.

Oh and the aid is not outright rejected.


Source:Pakistan to talk to U.S. over aid bill

Heh! so they will ask US to remove the clauses before accepting the aid.
I wonder how the clauses such as;
1. us monitoring the aid
2. destroying terrorist bases in pakistan
3. stop funding/supporting terrorist
4. aid in installments only on progress of action taken
will raise"serious concern about it's impact on Pakistani national security". Oh wait a minute maybe those terrorist are part of Pakistani army, that would explain it.

Taken from the above article:


Explain to me how these in anyway are related to "national security of Pakistan"? Do you see the picture now? If not then tell me how removing these clauses will strengthen national security of Pakistan and will ensure Pakistan is using the aid to fight terrorists? Even their refusal to accept these clauses will clearly show the intention of Pakistan to a 10 yr old.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by December_Rain]

reply to post by December_Rain

---

This is getting downright scary, that I'm finding myself having to agree with you.

But that's exactly where I am at this point.

I beleive you really DO have a bit more knowledge of the situation on the ground there than the average bear. My hat's off to ya.

I strongly suspect that our reasoning differs, but we appear to be arriving at the same conclusions.

Pakistan can either accept the aid as offered, or go it alone.

reply to post by nenothtu

---

haha...yeh' I agree with your point that Pakistan should accept these clauses.But what I want to add is they should be held accountable for each and every dollar given to them and more stringent monitoring of the aid should be done because all previous monitoring and clauses failed.

Afterall, if the purpose is good and in interest of US and Pakistan there is no reason for them not to accept stringent monitoring. Nothing to hide if one is doing correct thing. We don't want this money to get used against innocent civilians, American/Afghanistan/NATO and Indian troops on any side of border.

I just hope Obama or Clinton don't agree to drop or even 'alter' these clauses or the result will be catastrophic.




[edit on 10-10-2009 by December_Rain]

reply to post by December_Rain

---

I'm... I'm... speechless! I can't argue with you, because I'm in agreement.

This is VERY disconcerting.

reply to post by oozyism

---

The difference between NZ and the Taliban is that NZ would have seen that we weren't BSing and turn over the person whom we asked for. They would have spared their people and cities from an unnecessary war.


The Taliban await your help.

I think this is his chosen method of "helping" the Taliban. He's not terribly effective at it, but as they say, "They also fight, who only sit and wait".

This is one of the reasons why sophisticated technology not go the way of Pakistan

Court drops Pakistan cleric cases



Source - news.bbc.co.uk...

Recent attacks in or linked to Pakistan



Source - www.google.com...