An Indian Joke...

I actually wanted to post this in the joke section, but then I changed my mind, hope you folks enjoy the JOKE

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EA28Df01.html

KARACHI - Pakistan reversed its policy on Afghanistan by abandoning its support of the Taliban for the sake of its own national interests, which saw it side with the US in the war on terror. However, after the Taliban were routed and al-Qaeda’s network was scattered, it now appears that President General Pervez Musharraf attempted to play the al-Qaeda card - that is, he appeared to crack down on the organization in his country only for personal recognition from the US to ensure his military rule.

Pakistan’s newly appointed Foreign Minster, Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri, delivered his first speech last week at the UN Security Council in New York and surprised many with his statement that most of the recent terror incidents that had occurred in Pakistan were carried out by foreign intelligence agencies (possibly implying the Research and Analysis Wing - India’s intelligence agency) and not by al-Qaeda, as originally attested.

Kasuri’s statement was contrary to all Pakistani statements in the past and appears to be a bid to save Pakistan from being declared by the US as a safe sanctuary for terror organizations.

After the September 11, 2001 attacks in the US, it was largely with Pakistan’s help that the US was able to play havoc with the Taliban government. Pakistan provided three airbases to the US, provided logistical support, intelligence aid and also provided bases to rebel Afghan warlords to instigate defections in the eastern Pashtun belt. This help enabled the US to effectively subjugate the country and oversee the installation of the pro-Western administration of Hamid Karzai in Kabul.

Analysts agree that had Pakistan not supported the US, the war could have dragged on for many more months, instead of the two months that it took, and with considerably heavier casualties on US and allied forces.

A year later, not all in Pakistan are happy with the rewards that the country has received in return for ditching its erstwhile allies, the Taliban. Pakistan’s naval chief, Admiral Shahid Karimullah, on January 14, at a briefing on board the supply ship PNS Nasr, said that despite Pakistan’s policy in the post-September 11 period, the acquisition of technology and weapons systems for the defense forces remained affected by sanctions (imposed for Islamabad’s earlier nuclear tests) and the country would have to defend itself on its own.

“As far as the military is concerned, the squeeze on us continues, despite the perception to the contrary with regard to sanctions,” said Karimullah, spelling out the various alternatives the Pakistan navy was examining in terms of weapons acquisition and strategy to counter Indian “forward posturing”.

He said that the sanctions had compelled Pakistan to look for its needs eastward. His comments, and Musharraf’s own admission of an impending danger that Pakistan would be the next US target after Iraq, clearly show that the only thing that was traded for Pakistan in return for its cooperation with the US in its war on terror was recognition for Musharraf’s military rule in Pakistan.

After the Taliban and al-Qaeda were booted out of Afghanistan, Pakistan became the victim of terror incidents across the country, whether it was churches, consulates or individual foreign citizens. The Pakistani authorities immediately pointed to the hand of al-Qaeda behind the attacks to capture the maximum US attention. Under the same pretext, there was a hue and cry that Pakistan was being victimized for cooperating with the US. It was implied that the entire al-Qaeda network was holed up in Pakistan. To substantiate the claims, hundreds of Arabs were handed over to the US, but, except for a few, none was al-Qaeda, rather they were fresh volunteers who had initially gone to Afghanistan to fight the US. When the Taliban retreated, these Arab fighters ran helplessly to Pakistan, where they were rounded up by the authorities.

This was designed to create fear in the US mind that al-Qaeda was very much alive and ready to kick at any time. At the same time, the impression was created that Musharraf was indispensable in Pakistan in cooperating with the US.

For instance, take two high-profile cases in Karachi: A bomb blast near the US consulate in which several Pakistanis were killed, and the Sheraton blast in which several French workers were killed. Both incidents occurred last year. And in both cases law-enforcing agencies seized more than 70 persons belonging to about 10 different local gangs with an alleged affiliation to al-Qaeda.

These investigations caused so much confusion for foreign interrogators that they point blank refused to rely on information supplied by Pakistani authorities. The Federal Bureau of Investigation started to direct interrogations and raids. After the killing of the French workers, French counter-intelligence agents also beefed up their presence in Pakistan. Last Thursday, a French team arrived to interrogate suspects rounded up in connection with the Sheraton blast as Pakistan’s efforts were not trusted.

Recently, US authorities have insisted on launching big operations in Southern and Northern Waziristan Agency to catch al-Qaeda, Taliban and their Pakistani supporters. Pakistan initially resisted the move, but the US has pressed its case and Pakistan has agreed. Operations are expected in the near future.

Pakistan’s policy statements have in the past mostly been generated by Major General Rashid Qureshi, the press secretary to the president and the chief of the Inter-Services Public Relations of the Pakistan Army. Critics have said that Rashid must be the only example in the world where a public relations officer of the army acts as a spokesperson of the country.

Now, though, the US is publicly becoming exasperated with Pakistan and its hollow promises. In the most recent example, the US ambassador to Pakistan, Nancy Powell, said bluntly that Pakistan must stop being a platform for terrorism and honor its commitments to end infiltration by militants across the Line of Control into Jammu and Kashmir.

And what Asif Ali Zardari, the detained spouse of former premier Benazir Bhutto said last week is echoing around the country. He cautioned Musharraf against extending support to the United States, saying that the president himself would be responsible if Washington now pressured Pakistan into change its policies, as ambassador Powell appears to be laying the groundwork to do.

An Indian joke? The author Syed Saleem Shahzad is Pakistani. The article talks about Pak. The title should be changed to "A reality check for people obsessed with blaming India".

Good Morning Queer Ji.

g'morning 2b yaar. its actually night around here. :)

In that case, 'shabakhair'. Yaar, all night stints on GS is not good for the eyes :)

Here is another similar one from The Nation, again a Pakistani writer and paper. The article details, how all the policies adapted by Pakistan, have always gone wrong and backfired. :-
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/jan-2003/30/EDITOR/op3.asp

How to lose friends and make enemies Aziz-ud-Din Ahmad
Since the end of the Cold War Pakistan has gradually lapsed into isolation due to certain ill-conceived policies dictated to successive governments by the offstage players. Prominent among these are support for the Taliban regime and backing provided to the militant groups which wanted to take what they considered jihad to the four corners of the world. Even after the support for the Taliban was withdrawn under threat from Washington, and assurances were extended that Pakistan had nothing to do with the militant groups, a perception has continued to prevail that the promises were not being genuinely fulfilled because the administration was either ineffective or less than sincere in its professions.
This has alienated some of Pakistan’s traditional friends a reflection of which can be found in the change of stance on their part over some of the issues considered vital by the establishment. China for instance has over the years withdrawn support to what it once called the Kashmiri people’s struggle for self-determination. Iran and Turkey which helped Pakistan against India in 1965 and later supported development projects in Pakistan have lost warmth and have developed closer links with India.
The Chinese had discovered during a brief collaboration with the anti-Soviet jihadis that the later enjoyed close support of the CIA which was simultaneously encouraging the separatists in Sinkiang. The way some of the religious parties in Pakistan supplied jihadi literature to the Chinese hajis during stop-overs in Pakistan, subsequently canceled by Beijing, confirmed to it that those supporting militancy in Kashmir were also behind the demand for a separate Islamic state comprising China’s Muslim majority areas. This helped India persuade China that the struggle for the liberation of Kashmir was in fact a secessionist move of a similar type. The Sinkiang jihadis used the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan as a spring board and Pakistan being the biggest supporter of the religious militia, Chinese were not happy with Islamabad’s role.
India also succeeded in persuading Turkey which is fighting Kurd separatists who often resort to terrorist attacks on Turkish troops and civilians, that the Kashmiri’s struggle was another activity of the type. This changed the Turkish stance on Kashmir. Last year Prime Minister Ecevit visited New Delhi and declared both countries faced secessionist groups and would help each other fight them.
Pakistan’s relations with Iran deteriorated as some of the jihadi organizations patronized by the ISI got simultaneously involved in militant acts of a sectarian nature targeting the Shia community. The murder of the Director General of Iranian Cultural Centre in Lahore Aqai Sadiq Ganji and the terrorist attack on Iranian cadets leading to a number of deaths led to strong protests from Iran. The Taliban were considered Shia-haters, a view further strengthened by the 1998 killings in Mazar-e-Sharif. Tehran therefore decided to do all in its power to stop the religious militia from consolidating their hold on Afghanistan. This brought Iran closer to India which too was dead set against the Taliban on account of their special links with Islamabad. The relations between Iran and India were further strengthened during their joint co-operation with the Northern Alliance. President Khatami was the chief guest at India’s Republic Day last week where he signed a wide-ranging agreement involving economic exchanges, defence co-operation, joint reconstruction of Afghanistan and opposition to terrorism. The Delhi Declaration also contains a clause condemning states which “aid, abet and directly support terrorism.” It also condemned double standards in terror war, a phrase frequently used by India to slam US for not treating Pakistan as a sponsor of terrorism. The perception that Shias and Iranian citizens are safer in India than in Pakistan makes Iran feel more comfortable with New Delhi.
Islamabad could have retained the friendship of the Persian speaking Afghan leaders who subsequently formed the Northern Alliance had it remained neutral in the infighting that broke out among the mujahideen groups after the fall of Najib government in 1992. But the ISI would not agree to this as it had its own agenda regarding Afghanistan. It decided instead to support its blue eyed boy Gulbadin Hikmatyar, thus forcing all other leaders into the enemy camp. The ISI which was fixated by the doctrine of strategic depth wanted to have thoroughly dependable stooges in Kabul. Every leader chosen by it finally rebelled against the agency’s over-bearing attitude and joined the opposite camp. The last to go out of ISI control were the Taliban who among other things refused to return terrorists wanted by Pakistan despite repeated requests.
The end of Cold War had led to realignments among states all over the world, ending age old animosities in certain cases. Russia and China which had fought border wars decided to patch up and establish friendly relations. Pakistan too could have improved relations with Moscow if it was not seen to be the patron of the Taliban who continued to train the Chechens.
It was again on account of the country’s support to the Taliban that Pakistan lost the opportunity to establish friendly relations with the newly independent Central Asian States. The assistance extended by Kabul to the groups involved in destabilising a number of Central Asian countries gave birth to antipathy for Pakistan that still persists in most of these states.
What continues to add to Pakistan’s isolation is a widespread perception that its governments may not fulfil the promises they make because they are not in full control of the all powerful agencies. While President Musharraf considers Pakistan a front-line state in the war against terror and has extended a million dollar package of aid to the Karzai government, the anti-Karzai Hikmatyar and senior Taliban leaders like Jalaluddin Haqqani continue to be sheltered in the tribal areas from where they continue to operate. The US on which President Musharraf depends suspects that Pakistani agencies continue to help export cross border terrorism and run training camps in violation of promises extended by President Musharraf. This is what is implied by the remarks recently made by Ambassador Nancy Powell. If Pakistan stands isolated today, the offstage players still calling the shots are to be held mainly responsible for this.

Deleted <

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by queer: *
The author Syed Saleem Shahzad is Pakistani.
[/quote]

Nope. He's an Indian.

Last time, he had an article cut/paste from TOI.

Surely, obessed Indian with Pakistan.

SYED SALEEM SHAHZAD

I am in my early 30s and based in Pakistan’s southern city of Karachi. I have been writing for newspapers for several years, starting as a staff reporter at The Star (Dawn Group of Newspapers), to which I am still affiliated as senior political correspondent. The power sector and aviation were my main fields, and my exposes in these areas have had an impact on national policy making. More recently, I am known for writing bold stories about sensitive institutions like the apex court and the armed forces. Exposing the role of the Inter-Services Intelligence agency in Pakistani politics landed me in trouble, but intervention at a very high level by leaders of the national press forced the state apparatus to take a step back. Presently, regional issues including the political situations in Afghanistan, Iran and the Middle East are my focus. [Editor’s note: While the world’s media was still obsessed with the ruins of the World Trade Center, Saleem was putting the story into context: US courts Muslim backlash (Sept 12, 2001) and Osama bin Laden: Myths and reality (Sept 14, 2001)]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/about.html

<>

Truth surely speaks for itself.

the title for this thread is a testimony to the state of denial in many pakistani minds.

the article quoted is a succinct summarization of affairs that's been quite obvious for a while now. all the same a restatment might help open up some closed minds...I hope.

the part about pakistani's should not help US is however too much of a generalization. pakistan should start behaving like a sovereign nation again and react to events and merits of events rather than base all postures based on who is on what side. ofcourse getting out of military rule and islamic fundamentalism will be pre-qualifications for that.

Jagjeevan.. does that mean u r going to amend or revise your signature line to "I am god, hence I am great"?

PT,

How many times have you been proven wrong :hehe:

SYED SALEEM SHAHZAD is a brave reporter, considered a hinderance by the establishment.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ana: *
Jagjeevan.. does that mean u r going to amend or revise your signature line to "I am god, hence I am great"?
[/QUOTE]

no I am not going to amend the byline. However it is true that there is God in me and in you and therefore I am and you are a God too! It is the God in me and in you that's advising all to fight of the evils.

but I don't understand why you asked me this question. did you find something I said too presumptive? if so, sorry..I am just expressing my opinion(s)

Shalwar, may I remind you how many times you have posted your silly jokes? Remember how you declared openly that elections would never happen, and the excuse Musharraf would use would be India. See how wrong you usually are?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Spock: *

Shalwar, may I remind you how many times you have posted your silly jokes? Remember how you declared openly that elections would never happen, and the excuse Musharraf would use would be India. See how wrong you usually are?
[/QUOTE]

Abbay Spock. There is a difference between prediction and lying. And I had the guts to come back and say that my prediction was wrong.

Look here. PT makes a statement that Syed Saleem Shahzad was Indian without even doing a simple research. That is called being caught with hands in the cookie jar ;)

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Spock: *

Shalwar, may I remind you how many times you have posted your silly jokes? Remember how you declared openly that elections would never happen, and the excuse Musharraf would use would be India. See how wrong you usually are?
[/QUOTE]

what do you mean he's wrong about the elections? musharaf used the "India will beat the heck out of us if we don't" issue to hold the rigged elections - I call it rigged because he didn't allow several parties to participate, didn't allow a large portion of the people to be represented or contest (remember the college degree b.s).....so as far as normal sane countries go, this was not an election but a charade for making the dictator look good in his own eyes. if you're going to argue otherwise there's really no point.

that he managed to get inti this predicament of the religious party squeeze even through this rigged 'election' speaks volumes of how shewd an operator he is.

yet, he's the best you got

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jagjeevan: *

what do you mean he's wrong about the elections? musharaf used the "India will beat the heck out of us if we don't" issue to hold the rigged elections - I call it rigged because he didn't allow several parties to participate, didn't allow a large portion of the people to be represented or contest (remember the college degree b.s).....so as far as normal sane countries go, this was not an election but a charade for making the dictator look good in his own eyes. if you're going to argue otherwise there's really no point.

that he managed to get inti this predicament of the religious party squeeze even through this rigged 'election' speaks volumes of how shewd an operator he is.

yet, he's the best you got
[/QUOTE]

what are you babbling? Shalwar clearly said that pakistan would not hold elections, the reason being threat by india. Btw, its not your problem if we dont let the good nawaz stand in elections. btw, youre just pissed cuz the dictator had urs in Kargil.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Spock: *

what are you babbling? Shalwar clearly said that pakistan would not hold elections, the reason being threat by india. Btw, its not your problem if we dont let the good nawaz stand in elections. btw, youre just pissed cuz the dictator had urs in Kargil.
[/QUOTE]

disctator had what??? spock as usual u r being blah blah.....

 disctators armys a$$ was ahipped off in kargil along with mujahidin terrorist dogs..

:p