Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist
You know what, I have heard some people say the very same thing about Taliban. That Taliban are agents of Zionists, Indians, Americans, etc.
Well, if Saudis are funding them, then indirectly USA supports them as well :)
Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist
Well, if Saudis are funding them, then indirectly USA supports them as well :)
Hmm. And if everything happens with the Will of God then what Taliban do is the Will of God too.
So now we better not speak against what Allah wills.
Very nice. May be this is how Taliban declare anyone disagreeing with them as kafir and worthy of getting beheaded and blown up.
Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist
Hmm. And if everything happens with the Will of God then what Taliban do is the Will of God too. So now we better not speak against what Allah wills.
Now don't go on a tangent. Do you believe Saudis do not fund Taliban?
Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist
Now don't go on a tangent. Do you believe Saudis do not fund Taliban?
hahaha. Is this the new topic you want to discuss?
Why should I waste my time answering YOUR questions?
Talking of tangents. Can you explain how your question is relevant to the topic at hand?
Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist
hahaha. Is this the new topic you want to discuss? Why should I waste my time answering YOUR questions?
Talking of tangents. Can you explain how your question is relevant to the topic at hand?
Well, you started with the indians, zionists and americans thing.
Saying 'yes' or 'no' doesn't take long. If you do not wish to answer, leave it then.
Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist
This is true
Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist
Why opposing drones is aking to favouring Taliban? I understand that we all know about the population of Fata. We can take a fresh look at the New Stanford/NYU study on drones for an independently-researched view.
IK has been saying it openly that he is not against the US but opposes some of its policies. I wonder why it should be termed as doublespeak. If drones stop, would you please share with me, what exactly we have against the US?
Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist
This is true
Thank you for changing the title of the thread according to my post . It can be more effective if you added second line too
Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist
Lol, because you are not agreeing with me :D .
No no... my bad. i shouldnt mix politics with family matters. I will stay away from his personal matters now.
agreed..please leave personal family matters away frm politics...
to PTI followers .....
SRK.. a movie star and not a disputed figure in his home country...hence whole india and more importantly the indian govt was behind him...doubt the indian congress govt would have given a damn had modi got detained at the White Plains airport?
No?
Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist
سیدھی سی بات ہے کہ یہ پاکستانی قوم کی انسلٹ ہوئی ہے اور ہم سب کو اس کے خلاف ہونا چاہئیے تھا - اگر یہ پارٹی ٹھگ انٹرنیشنل ذرا بھی اخلاقی جرات کا مظاہرہ کرتی دورہ امریکہ منسوخ کرتی اور وہاں چندہ پارٹی میں شرکت نہ فرماتی ! کیا یہ چندہ زیادہ اہم تھا ؟ تو ہم بھی سمجھتے کہ کوئی غیرت مند لوگ ہیں مگر عزت ساری زندگی اس ٹھگ کا مسئلہ ہی نہیں رہا - کیا جنرل نیازی اور اس ٹھگ میں کوئی فرق نظر آتا ہے ؟
Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist
Why opposing drones is aking to favouring Taliban?
I am not sure why you are combining the two. Those are two separate and independent issues. He was asked about drones and he was asked about his being a supporter of Taliban. For the first one he said that he wants to stop them, and for the second one he said that he is not a supporter of Taliban and opposes US policies only in a few matters.
[quote]
IK has been saying it openly that he is not against the US but opposes some of its policies. I wonder why it should be termed as doublespeak. If drones stop, would you please share with me, what exactly we have against the US?
[/quote]
He says that he is against some of US policies, but this is the talk to win liberal votes. On the other hand, he goes to Akorra Khattak (the bastion of Taliban), he refuses to clearly disavow Taliban on their savagery, he wants to stop any military action against Taliban, and he continues to call this war against Taliban an American war. All this to win conservative votes.
[quote]
If drones stop, would you please share with me, what exactly we have against the US?
[/quote]
Just a few weeks back there were major violent rallies happening all over Pakistan against the US. They were not against the drones but against US refusal to stop an anti-Islam movie. This is just one example of the anger and hatred against the US our people have.
America really doesn't care about what kind of medieval system we implement in Afgh and Pak, because it already is a great friend of similarly medieval society of Saudi Arabia.
What it really wants is that all terrorism activities be stopped from Pakistan. But Imran doesn't think it is Pakistan's problem at all. This is why he says that there was no terrorism before 2003 when US invaded Afghanistan and Pak joined in.
But he ignores that the reason of it was that Pak was overlooking Taliban's terrorist activities elsewhere in the world.
Now America wants Pakistan to stop allowing its territories to be used for such acts. If Pakistan does it then Taliban terrorism in the country will continue. This is why it is our own war. Not just America's war. And if Imran doesn't agree with this argument then he will continue to be in bad books of America. Even when drone attacks are stopped.
Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist
**His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist
There was no problem in his politics when Pasha and Munter were serving
Aah Pasha kay jatay he lotay bhi bhagnay lagay
Aur Muner kay jatay hi …
**New US envoy arrives in Islamabad](Geo News: Latest News Breaking, Live Videos, World, Entertainment, Royal)
Immi yateem ho gia
Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist
When I read such things, such BLIND and PREJUDICED responses, i feel even more inclined to know whats that actually in this man to scare the lot of you. I guess I am voting for him these elections.
Don't compromise on Pakistan's future on the basis of such knee-jerk reaction. First understand what he is about and then if you agree with him, only then make your choice.
You are free to disagree but I believe him to be a Taliban apologist. And I believe that Talibanic extremism is the biggest threat Pakistan has faced to this day. Because it strikes at the root of Pakistan's ideology.
Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist
Muslim organization wrote letter to Hillary to revoke the U.S. visa of Imran Khan
[HR][/HR] The American Islamic Leadership Coalition from Phoenix, Ariz. wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton earlier this week, pressuring her to revoke the U.S. visa granted to Khan because of his sympathetic views towards the Taliban.
“The U.S. Embassy made a significant error in granting this Islamist leader a visa,” the group said in a statement. “Granting individuals like Khan access to the U.S. to fundraise is against the interest of the people of Pakistan and the national security interests of the U.S.”
Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist
There is a grand conspiracy in everything 
Why would they grant him a visa if they didn’t want him to enter the US? The US airport security people have gone overboard even since 9/11 and this is a result of that plain and simple.
About them apologizing to India for SRK and not giving a damn about us. It is quite simple. India is an emerging world power with a billion people who the US wants to sell stuff to. What do we have that they want? Why should they care about us?
The point that US would have apologized if we were united in our outrage and condemnation isn’t very strong either. Weren’t we united against opening the border? Did we get an apology? We tried our best for months on end to force them. They were willing to suffer but chose not to show any weakness.
Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist
Hmm. And if everything happens with the Will of God then what Taliban do is the Will of God too. So now we better not speak against what Allah wills.
Very nice. May be this is how Taliban declare anyone disagreeing with them as kafir and worthy of getting beheaded and blown up.
Peace khoji
This does not even address the point made ... which was "Saudi support Taliban and US support Saudi > US indirectly support Taliban" ... I have no idea if Saudi really support Taliban - but assuming they do there would be very clear reasons why this is a cogent argument - it is because there is such a thing as political influence - i.e. US can put pressure on governments to sanction - such as with Iran for example.
But what I find particularly annoying is this example of the Will of God and how everything happens by the Will of God ... YES ... it does ... do you not believe that everything happens by the Will of God?
Look even if Saudi and US are supporting Taliban that too would be the Will of God and the fact that Pakistanis are being killed - that is also the Will of God - Whatever manifests IS the Will of God ... But ... it is not to say that any of this is Legislated by God ... God only Legislates His Law. We can choose not to follow it.
The distaste this was used in attaching it to Taliban - was done at the expense of creating a dogmatic problem ... It is very much the aqeedah of Muslims to believe nothing happens outside the Will of Allah (SWT) ...
Do you believe otherwise?
Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist
Nobody called Imran himself a terrorist. He is more appropriately labeled a terrorist SUPPORTER. This is when people consider Taliban terrorists in the first place.
Labeled Terrorist supporter by who? Probably a bunch of fake liberals and supporters of parties who confusingly condemn them and then thank Talibans for not carrying out attacks for a month (Rehman of PPP), run terrorist cells themselves (MQM) or are forming alliance with terrorist parties like Sipah e Sihaba (PMLN)?
He should preferably issue stronger statements against Talibans but that kind of rules out any political solution in future so may not solve anything. Some prefer all out attack against Talibans (EVERY Pakistani want these brainwashed IDIOTS to be eliminated) but they will keep finding support if war, drones, military actions continue.
Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist
**Imran Khan is, according to numerous polls, the most popular politician inPakistan and may very well be that country’s next Prime Minister. He is also a vehement critic of US drone attacks on his country, vowing toorder them shot down if he is Prime Minister and leading an anti-drone protest march last month.
**
On Saturday, Khan boarded a flight from Canada to New York in order to appear at a fundraising lunch and other events. But before the flight could take off, US immigration officials removed him from the plane and detained him for two hours, causing him to miss the flight.
On Twitter, Khan reported that he was “interrogated on [his] views on drones” and then added: “My stance is known. Drone attacks must stop.” He then defiantly noted: “Missed flight and sad to miss the Fundraising lunch in NY but nothing will change my stance.”
The State Department acknowledged Khan’s detention and said: “The issue was resolved. Mr Khan is welcome in the United States.”
Customs and immigration officials refused to comment except to note that “our dual mission is to facilitate travel in the United States while we secure our borders, our people, and our visitors from those that would do us harm like terrorists and terrorist weapons, criminals, and contraband,” and added that the burden is on the visitor “to demonstrate that they are admissible” and “the applicant must overcome all grounds of inadmissibility.”
There are several obvious points raised by this episode. Strictly on pragmatic grounds, it seems quite ill-advised to subject the most popular leader in Pakistan - the potential next Prime Minister - to trivial, vindictive humiliations of this sort. It is also a breach of the most basic diplomatic protocol: just imagine the outrage if a US politician were removed from a plane by Pakistani officials in order to be questioned about their publicly expressed political views. And harassing prominent critics of US policy is hardly likely to dilute anti-US animosity; the exact opposite is far more likely to occur.
**But the most important point here is that Khan’s detention is part of a clear trend by the Obama administration to harass and intimidate critics of its drone attacks. As Marcy Wheeler notes, “this is at least the third time this year that the US has delayed or denied entry to the US for Pakistani drone critics.”
**
**Last May, I wrote about the amazing case of Muhammad Danish Qasim, a Pakistani student who produced a short film entitled “The Other Side”, which “revolves around the idea of assessing social, psychological and economical effects of drones on the people in tribal areas of Pakistan.” As he put it, “the film takes the audience very close to the damage caused by drone attacks” by humanizing the tragedy of civilian deaths and also documenting how those deaths are exploited by actual terrorists for recruitment purposes.
**
**Qasim and his co-producers were chosen as the winner of the Audience Award for Best International Film at the 2012 National Film Festival For Talented Youth, held annually in Seattle, Washington. He intended to travel to the US to accept his award and discuss his film, but was twice denied a visa to enter the US, and thus was barred from making any appearances in the US.
**
**The month prior, Shahzad Akbar - a Pakistani lawyer who represents drone victims in lawsuits against the US and the co-founder of the Pakistani human rights organization, Foundation for Fundamental Rights - was scheduled to speak at a conference on drones in Washington. He, too, was denied a visa, and the Obama administration relented only once an international outcry erupted.
**
**There are two clear dynamics driving this. First, the US is eager to impose a price for effectively challenging its policies and to prevent the public - the domestic public, that is - from hearing critics with first-hand knowledge of the impact of those policies. As Wheeler asks, “Why is the government so afraid of Pakistanis explaining to Americans what the drone attacks look like from a Pakistani perspective?”
**
**This form of intimidation is not confined to drone critics. Last April, I reported on the serial harassment of Laura Poitras, the Oscar-nominated documentarian who produced two films - one from Iraq and the other from Yemen - that showed the views and perspectives of America’s adversaries in those countries. For four years, she was detained every single time she reentered the US, often having her reporters’ notebook and laptop copied and even seized. Although this all stopped once that article was published - demonstrating that there was never any legitimate purpose to it - that intimidation campaign against her imposed real limits on her work.
**
**That is what this serial harassment of drone critics is intended to achieve. That is why a refusal to grant visas to prominent critics of US foreign policy was also a favorite tactic of the Bush administration.
**
Second, and probably even more insidious, this reflects the Obama administration’s view that critics of its drone policies are either terrorists or, at best, sympathetic to terrorists. Recall how the New York Times earlier this year - in an article describing a new report from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism documenting the targeting of Pakistani rescuers and funerals with US drones - granted anonymity to a “senior American counterterrorism official” to smear the Bureau’s journalists and its sources as wanting to “help al-Qaida succeed”.
**For years, Bush officials and their supporters equated opposition to their foreign policies with support for the terrorists and a general hatred of and desire to harm the US. During the Obama presidency, many Democratic partisans have adopted the same lowly tactic with vigor.
**
That mindset is a major factor in this series of harassment of drone critics: namely, those who oppose the Obama administration’s use of drones are helping the terrorists and may even be terrorist sympathizers. It is that logic which would lead US officials to view Khan as some sort of national security threat by virtue of his political beliefs and perceive a need to drag him off a plane in order to detain and interrogate him about those views before allowing him entrance to the US.
**What makes this most ironic is that the US loves to sermonize to the world about the need for open ideas and political debate. In April, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lectured the planet on how “those societies that believe they can be closed to change, to ideas, cultures, and beliefs that are different from theirs, will find quickly that in our internet world they will be left behind,”
That she is part of the same government that seeks to punish and exclude filmmakers, students, lawyers, activists and politicians for the crime of opposing US policy is noticed and remarked upon everywhere in the world other than in the US. That demonstrates the success of these efforts: they are designed, above all else, to ensure that the American citizenry does not become exposed to effective critics of what the US is doing in the world.**
Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist
I had one question though IK does not leave aside any opportunity to criticize US. Why did he have to travel there shamelessly. Money speaks I suppose.
Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist
^ is it a sin to condemn US foreign policy?