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.

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by oozyism

 

If they were going to Afghanistan then the American invaders have the right to fight them.

Don't like the invader part, but at least you now acknowledge that the US has the RIGHT to fight the enemy.

But at least you now acknowledge that the enemy has the RIGHT to fight the invaders.

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 ...

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by oozyism

 

The US invaded the country in 2001 in order to capture or kill bin Laden, and deny al-Qaeda sanctuary. Eight years later, that mission remains unaccomplished.

Some analysts believe that not only has Washington failed to curb al-Qaeda's influence, but the presence of US troops in Afghanistan has simply served to export al-Qaeda ideology to other groups – including the Pakistan Taliban.

"We have not only been unable to defeat al-Qaeda ... [but] we have taken them from Afghanistan to the FATA area [Pakistan's northern tribal areas) where their key leadership resides and now have a serious role in Afghanistan," says Hekmat Karzai, a regional security analyst.

let's agree that the occupation was responsible for the destabilization, keep it up.

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.

Originally posted by oozyism

Yes, it WAS something avoidable. As I stated previously, all the Taliban had to do was give up a murderer.

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

Get real

[edit on 8-10-2009 by oozyism]


It is the height of naivety to try and apply American justice standards - concepts like 'Innocent until proven guilty' - to other parts of the world - especially places that believe in sharia. They simply have never thought the same way.

And most people understand that when a group or country like the taliban says "show me the evidence", they are simply stalling. Because whatever evidence we provide, would not be good enough.

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

Many consider that Pakistan has been playing both sides in the fight against terror, on the one hand helping to curtail it while secretly stoking terrorism.[22][23] Ahmed Rashid, a noted Pakistani journalist, has accused Pakistan's ISI of providing help to the Taliban.[24] Author Ted Galen Carpenter echoed that statement, stating that Pakistan "...assisted rebel forces in Kashmir even though those groups have committed terrorist acts against civilians"[25] Author Gordon Thomas stated that whilst aiding in the capture of Al Qaeda members, Pakistan "still sponsored terrorist groups in the disputed state of Kashmir, funding, training and arming them in their war on attrition against India."[26] Journalist Stephen Schwartz notes that several terrorist and criminal groups are "backed by senior officers in the Pakistani army, the country's ISI intelligence establishment and other armed bodies of the state."[27] According to one author, Daniel Byman, "Pakistan is probably today's most active sponsor of terrorism."[28]

Source - en.wikipedia.org...

The ISI and fight against terror

"The ISI probably would not define what they've done in the past as 'terrorism,'" says William Milam, former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan. Nevertheless, experts say the ISI has supported a number of militant groups in the disputed Kashmir region between Pakistan and India, some of which are on the U.S. State Department's Foreign Terrorist Organizations list. While Pakistan has a formidable military presence near the Indian border, some experts believe the relationship between the military and some Kashmiri groups has greatly changed with the rise of militancy within Pakistan. Shuja Nawaz, author of Crossed Swords: Pakistan, its Army, and the Wars Within, says the ISI "has certainly lost control" of Kashmiri militant groups. According to Nawaz, some of the groups trained by the ISI to fuel insurgency in Kashmir have been implicated in bombings and attacks within Pakistan, therefore making them army targets.

Source - www.cfr.org...

reply to post by centurion1211

It is the height of naivety to try and apply American justice standards - concepts like 'Innocent until proven guilty' - to other parts of the world - especially places that believe in sharia. They simply have never thought the same way.

And most people understand that when a group or country like the taliban says "show me the evidence", they are simply stalling. Because whatever evidence we provide, would not be good enough.

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..

Originally posted by oozyism

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?

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

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?

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]

Originally posted by oozyism

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.

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?

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

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.

And keep with the flow

"... but seriously you don't just make millions of assumptions to demonize your enemy?"

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

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

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.

More lolies for you.. "

Thank you... I think.

[edit on 2009/10/10 by nenothtu]

Originally posted by December_Rain

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

Originally posted by nenothtu

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Exactly what I am saying.

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.

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.

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.

ISLAMABAD, Oct 10 (Reuters) - Pakistan's government and its military leadership have agreed to present Washington with their common concerns about a U.S. aid bill which would link some aid to a commitment to fight terrorism, the prime minister's office said on Saturday.

"It was decided that the government of Pakistan will take up the controversial clauses of the bill with the U.S. government," Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani's office said in a statement after a meeting with the president and military chiefs.

Critics of the bill, approved last week, say it violates Pakistani sovereignty and the army had voiced "serious concern" about its potential impact on national security.

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:

Clauses in the bill require U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to certify that Pakistan is dismantling militant bases in its northwest, in the southwestern city of Quetta, where the U.S. administration believes Afghan Taliban leaders are hiding, as well as in Punjab province, where anti-India groups are based

Clinton must also certify that Pakistan is preventing al Qaeda and other militant groups including the Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was accused of last November's assault on the Indian city of Mumbai, from operating in Pakistan and attacking neighbours. The bill also seeks Pakistani cooperation to dismantle nuclear supplier networks by offering "relevant information from or direct access to" Pakistanis associated with such networks.

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

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.

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.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by oozyism

 

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

A court in Pakistan has dismissed two cases against an Islamic charity leader accused of involvement in the 2008 Mumbai (Bombay) attacks.

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

Recent attacks in or linked to Pakistan

A look at some recent major attacks in Pakistan or blamed on Pakistan-based militants: _ Oct. 12, 2009: A suicide car bomb explodes near an army vehicle in a market in the northwest Shangla district, killing 41, including six security officers, and wounding 45. _ Oct. 10, 2009: A raid on army headquarters in the city of Rawalpindi kills nine militants and 14 others. _ Oct. 9, 2009: A suicide car bomb in the northwestern city of Peshawar kills 53 people. _ Oct. 5, 2009: A bomber dressed as a security official kills five staffers at the U.N. food agency's headquarters in the capital, Islamabad. _ Sept. 18, 2009: A suicide car bomb destroys a two-story hotel near the northwestern town of Kohat, killing 30 people in what might have been a sectarian attack by Sunni militants against Shiite Muslims. _ May 27, 2009: A suicide car bomber targets buildings housing police and intelligence offices in the eastern city of Lahore, killing about 30 and wounding at least 250. _ March 27, 2009: A suicide bomber demolishes a packed mosque near the northwestern town of Jamrud, killing about 50 people and injuring scores more. _ March 3, 2009: Gunmen attack the Sri Lankan national cricket team in Lahore, wounding several players and killing six policemen and a driver. _ Nov. 26-28, 2008: Ten attackers, allegedly from Pakistan, kill 166 people in a three-day assault on luxury hotels, a Jewish center and other sites in Mumbai, India. _ Sept. 20, 2008: A suicide truck bomb kills at least 54 and wounds more than 250 as it devastates the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad. _ Aug. 21, 2008: Suicide bombers blow themselves up at two gates of a weapons factory in the town of Wah, killing at least 67 people and wounding at least 100.

Source - www.google.com...