yehudis one - pakistanis zero

dont anyone tell you that yehudi qaum is not smart -a qaum that can run circles around pakistani qaum.

pakistani qaum turned against musharraf because musharraf was regarded as an american tuttoo even though musharraf had resisted key american demands such as allowing nato forces to enter fata and not negotiating with taliban. yet while pakistani qaum is celebrating the removal of musharraf, awam has installed in place of musharraf, a leader who is completely in the jaib of neocons and their yehudi backers. since musharraf’s removal, americans have been attacking fata almost on a daily basis and one of those attacks have involved the use of ground troops. while americans clearly dont need permission of pakistan to attack fata, uncle sam would like pakistan to be on board because an uncooperative pakistan would make life difficult for american interest in the region. karzai for instance would be history if isi was to turn against afghanistan.

recent developments in pakistan should not come as a surprise either. ppp is run by people who dont mind killing their own family members in order to remain in power. so selling country’s interest down the drain is no big deal for such people. couple of years ago, ppp employed the help of neocon agents in the u.s. such as haqqani to get to power. neocon tuttoos ultimately succeeded despite initial resistance. and as for american love for democracy, only pakistanis are foolish enough to believe nonsense like that. all i would like add here is that rice was in libya this week toasting to health of the madman qaddafi - man who has been in power since musharraf was a lowly captain in pakistan amy.

true to form, since ppp has come to power, zardari has been trying to take steps to please his neocon backers. first thing zardari did when he came to power was to call for a un investigigation which was a ploy to hand control of pakistani security establishment to neocons. when that ploy failed, attempt was made to take control of isi from musharraf. when that did not fly either, decision was made to get rid of musharraf.

question also arises why did musharraf go along with americans? in my opinion, like most pakistanis musharraf is too trusting of goras - complex he shares with lots pakistanis. also he probably realized that if he kept leading politicians away in election, pak would come under huge pressure including threat of sanctions for not holding free elections.

so what happens now? answer: its all up in the air. neocons including their indian allies will be getting lot of dirt on pak. not sure if govt will access to nuclear program. americans have tried to get information without success. as musharraf said,pakistan ka allah hafiz.

tariq ali made echoed my thoughts in guardian today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/07/pakistan.usa

"…Having implanted Hamid Karzai in Kabul (with dire results as many in Washington now admit), he had been livid with Musharraf for refusing to give 100% support to his Afghan protege. Khalilzad now saw an opportunity to punish Musharraf and simultaneously try and create a Pakistani equivalent of Karzai.

Zardari fitted the bill. He is perfectly suited to being a total creature of Washington. The Swiss government helpfully decided to release millions of dollars from Zardari’s bank accounts that had, till now, been frozen due to the pending corruption cases. Like his late wife, Zardari, too, is now being laundered, just like the money he made when last in office as minister for investment. This weakness will make him a pliant president of Pakistan…"

i had started a thread on similar lines six weeks before zardari came to power:

http://www.paklinks.com/gs/pakistan-affairs/273801-yehudis-coming-yehudis-coming.html

Re: yehudis one - pakistanis zero

King Faisal, what do you have to say about those attacks by the coalition forces, right after which Musharraf and the army would claim responsibility?

actually that claim was made on the first instance of such attack because at that time, the attack was regarded as completely shocking. pak is at war and deception is the norm in war. govt did the right thing at that time by trying to prevent further inflation of anti-american feeling in pak. these days however, american attacks are the norm and no one says anything even with american troops operating inside pakistan.

Re: yehudis one - pakistanis zero

lol! right thing yeah right!hours after they make those claims, they'd be humiliated by the coalition forces representatives. Ever wondered why Pakistan was on the verge of breakup last year? It was because of such idiotic moves on the part of our great leader. If the leadership is spineless and gutless, thats the last thing they should be doing, taking responsibility for someones else attack on their own people.

al qaeeda might be your people but they are not mine. i support attack on al qaeeda and their pakistani agents by pakistanis and by nato.

:omg: Yeah, Musharraf didn’t negotiate with Taliban :rotfl:

Someone from Mars came by and gave Mehsud a few US$ million, I wonder who he was. :hmmm:

Musharraf was pulling ISI strings? I thought ISI was under military control (while Musharraf had long resigned from military post when Gillani tried to pull the rug underneath ISI).

Wait, on one hand you support Musharraf while on other hand you also support bombing by Nato (you also claim that NATO was being kept away by Musharraf)?

this thread is funny, whoever comes and says 'omg musharraf was the savior against amreeka' just makes me laugh. btw, it was mushy who had scotch
friendly' drinking sessions with the israeli pm.

I am not a drinker, but I dont understand your obsession with Mushy's drinking. In a secular society drinking, listening to song and music are not a crimes. They werent crimes when Pakistan was made. Jinnah was a drinker. Many a great poet like Iqbal were drinkers. Many other leaders were too, such as ZA Bhutto. Ironically, Bhutto passed the drinking ban to pander to the mullah element. It was a gimmick, for he continued to drink throughout the ban. now we have people like you trying to make a big deal out of it. It doesnt interest secular minded people. By asking such questions, you raise concerns about your understanding of good government. Again, it suggests a lack of understanding of how much citizens want governments to interfere in their private lives.

Before wasting that energy and typing those lines, where did I say it was the ultimate sin? I just pointed out a fact, the media reported Musharraf enjoyed a drink at a hotel with the Israeli PM. I suggest you write to them if youre so concerned if its depicting a bad image.

Listen "bob"....in a country that is founded on the notion of faith/religion and specifically Islam. There is a certain expectation from its people, and specifically the "leaders" to adhere to the spirit of the nation's foundation. So before going on and on and on about what's right and wrong, you need to go waaaaaaaaaaaay back and look at the reason Pakistan was formed. It was meant to be an example muslim nation. Period. It's far from it.

Musharraf had his positive and negatives, frankly, his negatives brought him down. He allied himself with those who are opportunists. He opposed anyone who didn't agree to his perspective, took all the decisions himself. And the list goes on and on....

But you probably don't want to hear all that...Blind support leaves anyone vulnerable to misguidance and manipulation.

Yesterday, twice you mentioned him drinking and watching mujras when you accused him of embezzlement.

Keep going. Dont stop on my account. Thats what gupshup is all about.

Thank you for paying so much attention. Yes, importing scotch and holding mujra sessions arent free in case you didnt know. This lavishness costs money, and thats not coming out of the General's salary.

Now it makes all the sense why Musharraf was needed to be removed. Because he did not allow Pakistan should be turned into another Iraq or Afghanistan by being attacked by foreign forces. He must have seen the intentions of those carrying out these attacks openly and freely now. What they wanted to do of Pakistan.

And now it makes sense why this guy was let go by UK / Swiss govts. for the corruption cases against him. Who instructed to release those cases?

Now, with these new leaders, there is absolutely no hope for Pakistan. Absolutely no hope.

And I have absolutely nothing to say on the political scene of Pakistan anymore. I can only feel sorry for this state and that's about it.

And yes, "Pakistan ka Allah hi hafiz hai". No doubt. Only God can save Pakistan now.

Generals dont have salaries they have compensation packages that include several plots of land, free Government accomodations, transportation and communication privileges. That is before they become Presidents. This is not speculation, Musharraf was a General since 1991.

In addition, everywhere in the world politicians find ways of having parties. The mullah types, like Zia, found ways of funding their hujras instead of mujras. This is not the same as taking cuts from government contracts, that bleeds a country dry. A corrupt President of a country like Pakistan would have hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions stashed away in foreign banks at the end of 8 years as President. You are talking about a $3 million farmhouse and a history of drinks and mujras by the end of a 17 year tenure as a General in the Pakistan Army and eight as a President. That is not exactly my idea of a smoking gun.

Re: yehudis one - pakistanis zero

^ Chanda, Musharraf spent more money in office than any other leader ever has. Do you even know how much money he paid to Attorney General Malik Qayum (a retard, crooked politican/lawyer with a poor track record) alone to defend him in that CJ case, which by the way he lost :hehe:? Those book selling tours, learjets, hotel bills, mujraz did not come out of his own pocket. You are right, he didnt pay that much for that farmhouse because he acquired it illegally on subsidies.

Now I know you have a habit of derailing the thread, but this topic isnt about his embezzlement so dont start yapping off on tangents again, because it will be deleted.

Re: yehudis one - pakistanis zero

Here is thte article that appeared in NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/world/asia/19legacy.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&hp&oref=slogin

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Often impetuous and a commando at heart, President Pervez Musharraf pledged to reverse Pakistan’s longstanding support of the Taliban after 9/11, bending to tremendous American pressure to become one of Washington’s most crucial allies in the campaign against terrorists.
**But he largely failed to live up to that commitment, to the increasing frustration of American officials, who invested $12 billion in assistance to Pakistan. **
Though Mr. Musharraf forged a personal bond with President Bush that assured American support for him even as his public standing declined precipitously, he produced only mixed results for Washington, increasing suspicions that he was playing a double game.
His pledge to fight terrorism aided the Bush administration in its immediate war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, making Pakistan an essential supply pipeline for NATO and American troops.
Later, Mr. Musharraf allowed the United States to work with Pakistani intelligence to arrest senior Qaeda operatives inside Pakistan, and he discreetly gave Washington a green light to strike at Qaeda targets in Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas.
Yet for every decision that Mr. Musharraf calculated would help the United States, there were many that did not, leaving policy makers in Washington to wonder which side he was really on.
Today, the Taliban and Al Qaeda, according to the United States intelligence assessments, are more entrenched in Pakistan’s tribal areas than they were several years ago, and are exacting an increasing toll on American and NATO forces across the border in Afghanistan.
**Mr. Musharraf, though a secular leader who is said to enjoy the occasional tumbler of Scotch, did little to undercut the power of extremist clerics in the nation, or to curb the Taliban and other militant groups, which had long been used by Pakistan’s intelligence services to exert influence in India and Afghanistan.
Yet he also displayed a taste for military adventurism and sometimes reckless pursuit of Pakistan’s own goals, which were sometimes at odds with American interests. **
When he was chief of army staff, he brought Pakistan to the brink of nuclear war with India by deploying troops to a remote part of the Himalayas called Kargil. President Clinton negotiated a cease-fire in 1999, a move that Mr. Musharraf later complained was forced on Pakistan and that amounted, he said, to an unconditional withdrawal.
And he presided over the worst cases of nuclear proliferation in history. A national hero, Abdul Qadeer Khan, who had masterminded the building of his country’s atomic bomb, was allowed to transform himself into the largest and most sophisticated exporter of bomb-making designs and equipment. Dr. Khan’s illicit network sent designs and nuclear material to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
On the central post-9/11 issue for the United States, the curbing of the power of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency never severed ties with the Islamic extremists.
The rejuvenated Taliban now virtually control Pakistan’s tribal region bordering Afghanistan, and are pressing into the rest of the country, threatening the stability of the nuclear-armed nation of 165 million people.
“Musharraf continued to provide cover to the Taliban, but still managed to convince the Americans for many years that it was not a double game,” said Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani expert on the Taliban and the author of “Descent Into Chaos,” a book that details the relationship between Mr. Musharraf and Washington. “It was a remarkable feat of balancing on the tightrope.”
As a result, General Musharraf won billions of dollars in American military aid, as well as covert aid. About half the military aid was supposed to be spent on bolstering the counterinsurgency skills of the Pakistani Army. Mu
ch of that money never reached the military and was allocated instead to Pakistan’s general budget,
but the Bush administration chose not to complain, according to a Congressional investigation this year.
Washington finally lost patience last month. In a diplomatic showdown, the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency confronted the country’s new prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, with evidence that the Pakistani intelligence service helped plan the July 7 terrorist attack against the Indian Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan.
By then, however, Mr. Musharraf’s power was eclipsed, and the Bush administration acknowledged that Mr. Musharraf’s usefulness was past.
His popularity among Pakistanis plummeted in the last year. In June, 85 percent of the people wanted him to resign, according to a poll by the International Republican Institute, a nonprofit organization based in Washington. Two years before, a poll by the institute found that the president had an approval rating of 60 percent.
One of the reasons for the collapse of his reputation was a failing economy, battered by capital flight, rapidly falling foreign-exchange reserves and soaring inflation, now at 21 percent. People struggle to pay for flour and fuel. The entire country suffers from prolonged power failures, which, according to the International Monetary Fund, can be attributed largely to the failure of the Musharraf government to build power plants. One of Pakistan’s few growth industries is the sale of generators for domestic and industrial use.
General Musharraf began his tenure as president with a wave of support from a public weary of a decade of weak and corrupt civilian government.
In the beginning, he attracted competent people to his cabinet. He promised to tackle the spread of madrasas, the religious schools that had become breeding grounds of Islamic extremists.

But the madrasas remained untouched, mainly because he handed the task to the Ministry of Religious Affairs, which was opposed to the plan, according to Javangir Tareen, a former minister in the Musharraf cabinet.
The president backed some important changes involving the media and the rights of women. Now, dozens of private television stations exist in Pakistan, many of them with rambunctious political talk shows. He also moved to improve the status of women by pushing for the amendment of strict Islamic laws, including those dealing with rape.
“Musharraf tried to construct a modern enlightened state,” Mr. Tareen said. “But he proved you cannot do this on the structure of a patronage-driven and police-oriented political machine.”
One of the president’s greatest shortcomings, Mr. Tareen said, was his disdain for democratic norms and civilian politicians.
In 2002, General Musharraf ordered a referendum on his legitimacy as president. No opposition candidates were permitted to run, and rallies by opposition political parties were banned.
In March 2007, facing elections later in the year, Mr. Musharraf fired the chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, apparently out of fear that the judiciary might undermine his re-election.
A tidal wave of support for Justice Chaudhry from lawyers across the country turned into a vibrant anti-Musharraf campaign.
By November, the general felt trapped, declared a state of emergency and fired 60 judges. He relinquished his position as head of the army last November, but by the time he lifted the state of emergency in December, he was seen as an unpopular dictator, and his political opponents, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, had returned to Pakistan to contest elections.
After Ms. Bhutto was assassinated, her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, took the reins of the Pakistan People’s Party. In February elections, the two opposition parties swept into power, forming an uneasy coalition.
In the end, Mr. Musharraf was unable to strike a balance between the Americans and the religious extremists, and Pakistan is left in a more precarious position as a result, Mr. Rashid, the writer, said.
Last year, there were 56 suicide attacks in Pakistan, many of them in urban areas, that were attributed to the Taliban ensconced in the distant tribal areas. The Taliban are now pouring into more settled regions, arousing great anxiety in a demoralized army often loath to fight an insurgency, and posing a serious threat to Pakistan itself.

My last post on this thread, since you are getting rude.

brw, you might want to go back and look at the thread “US dropping more bombs”. Check out comment number 2 to see whose comment has not been deleted.

Re: yehudis one - pakistanis zero

yehudis one - pakistanis zero hmm :o

game start kab hoi thee
and how come nobody told me about it

Re: yehudis one - pakistanis zero

At least the premiers in both countries have something in common....Both have corruption charges against them!!!

I say its one all now!