President Barack Obama sat down with Al-Arabiya television today in his “first formal interview as the American president,” [see clip above for full interview]. The Associated Press called the segment “part of a concerted effort to repair relations with the Muslim world that were damaged under the previous administration.” The news agency added in its coverage, “Obama cited his Muslim background and relatives, practically a taboo issue during the U.S. presidential campaign, and said in the interview, which aired Tuesday, that one of his main tasks was to communicate to Muslims ‘that the Americans are not your enemy.’” CNN aired a clip of Obama asserting, “We can have disagreements but still be respectful. I cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians, and we will hunt them down. But to the broader Muslim world, what we are going to offer is a hand of friendship.” The newly inaugurated president added, “My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people that simply want to live their lives…my job to the Muslim world is to communicate that Americans are not your enemy.”
CNN’s Rick Sanchez spoke with Professor Fawaz Gerges [of Sarah Lawrence College and author of several books including, Journey of the Jihadist: Inside Muslim Militancy], who commented on Obama’s statements today. When asked, “If this was a public relations war, is Al Qaeda winning,” Gerges replied, “I don’t think AQ is winning the war at all. In fact, I have argued all along that [they] lost the war of ideas in the last two years, and what Obama is trying to do is hammer a deadly nail in the coffin of AQ.” The professor called this approach “a very promising beginning,” adding that the policy will ultimately “make the U.S. safer” and go a long way to repair the bridges [of trust] between U.S. and Muslim world. [For a related & interesting article on the growing irrelevance of Al Qaeda, read this piece by The Economist.]
The interview today was significant because of how Obama framed “the enemy.” There was a marked shift from past Bush administration policy, which often polarized good and bad, using abstract phrases like “The Axis of Evil,” the “War on Terror,” and “you’re either with us or against us.” President Obama acknowledged the “gray area” in today’s televised segment, drawing the distinction between terrorist organizations and the people of the “Muslim World” who, as he asserted, do extraordinary things and want extraordinary things for their children. His rhetoric demonstrated an understanding of the complexities that exist in the international community today, a far cry from the policy over the last eight years.
Putting rhetoric into practice may prove difficult though, particularly in regard to Pakistan, and the continued air strikes in our tribal areas, [see recent post on recent drone attacks]. Today, Dawn reported that Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced during a U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that the United States “will continue to carry out missile strikes against Al Qaeda militants in Pakistan.” The news agency noted in its coverage, “‘Both President Bush and President Obama have made clear that we will go after Al Qaeda wherever Al Qaeda is and we will continue to pursue that,’ Gates said. Asked by committee chairman Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, if that decision had been conveyed to the Pakistani government, Gates replied: ‘Yes, sir.’”
Hmmm. Is it ever justifiable for the U.S. to hit targets if it means coming on to Pakistani soil? What if the only casualties are Al Qaeda or Taliban-linked militants? Will it impact the Obama administration’s new olive branch to the Muslim World? I pose these questions not only because I’m conflicted over the answers, but because I think it’s an interesting opening for discussion.
[...] url: "http://teabreak.pk/obama-addresses-the-muslim-world-42/13571/" }); Read more at: CHUP! – Changing Up Pakistan al arabiya, al arabiya television, fawaz gerges, journey of the jihadist, sarah lawrence [...]
@ its great time that Americans realize and
admit their crimes against all the muslim
nations, countries, culture and economy,
for the last 75 years, whether its toppling
Mussadaq’s Govt in Iran, or hanging
Saddam Hussain on neocon’s “request”
Committing Palestinian’s genocide by approving
arming Israel to kill Palestinians, the massacres,
Israeli nazis perpetrate regularly, everyone
in the muslim country is assassinated on US
Neocon’s orders, executed by Mossad and its
dependants. YES, Ahmedinajad is justified, US
demanding excuse to all muslim nations with
who’s blood Americans have on their hands,
and try to repair !! and total withdrawl
from all muslim territories.
Muslims have eternal right to get them on their
territory and liquidate them in retaliation.
US/Israel are criminals of war and have committed
War crimes,
1.4 millions of Iraqis assassinated by US
867.000 Afghanis exterminated by US
3.500 Pakistanis in Fata and NWFP killed by US drones.
92 % OF THE ABOVE GENOCIDED, WERE JUST THE
CIVILIANS, CHILDREN, WOMEN, OLDs.
TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF INFRASTRUCTURE, JUST LIKE
ISRAELI HAVE DONE IN PALESTINE.
THE BIGGEST HURDLE AND OBSTACLE FOR DEMOCRACY
IN THE MUSLIM WORLD IS THE NEOCONS OF USA & ISRAEL.
THE ONLY CONCRETE THREAT TO WORLD PEACE and
ESCALATION TOWARDS 3RD WW IS USA & ISRAEL.
MR PRESIDENT !!
TALKING, TALKING, STATEMENTS,
DECLARATIONS, DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING !!!
YOU HAVE YOUR CHIEF OF STAFF A ZIONIST ISRAELI
SOLDIER, A PALESTINIAN-KILLER , CAN YOU RECRUIT
COUPLE OF MUJS FROM TALIBANS FOR YOUR
” VERY ” WHITE HOUSE STAFF ??
PLEASE CHOOSE HONEST, SINCERE, INTELLIGENT,
NON-ZIONIST ADMINISTRATION AND WHO KNOW
LITTLE BIT OF GEOGRAPHY AND CULTURE !
YOURS FAITHULLY,
Rafay Kashmiri
Kalsoom-
Wonderful questions, I am also regularly confused by these questions because there are so many overlapping issues, ideas, and interests. I don’t think blaming everything on the US or Israel clears up any of this confusion, nor does it promote any progress in the region or help to save Pakistani lives. With that said….
Is it ever justifiable for the U.S. to hit targets if it means coming on to Pakistani soil? Based on old school IR principles of sovereignty, it doesn’t seem justifiable for the US to send drones over Pakistan. However, in practice it is justifiable because the Pakistani government has agreed to cooperate with the US by any means to combat al Qaeda and Taliban forces operating inside Pakistan, including drones. The Pakistanis are willing to give the Americans a wide berth of operations inside their terriroty, much of which they are probably unformable with, as quid pro quo in order to get more military support from the US in the form of F-16s, and C4ISR capabilities (see Zardari’s op ed in today’s Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/27/AR2009012702675.html)
Pakistan’s agreement to cooperate with the US is by no means a carte blanche, however, and I think there needs to be some clarification in the current relationship. I think Zardari’s support for Holbrooke and the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act are great first steps in that direction. Maybe Holbrooke can help us sort out some of this confusion! President Obama’s overtures toward understanding and bridging cultural gaps is of even greater importance- because as long as Americans see Pakistanis as working against us and Pakistanis see the US as infringing on their rights, neither of us is going to make any progress in improving our relationship or strengthening our security.
@Madame,
does zardari have any endoresement from his
parliament to send drones to kill civilians ??
to which Zardari admited.
And just what allows US to designate civilians as terrorists
and exterminate them. Who is terrorists ? if they are not
Americans ? was Iraq not terrorism ? was Afghanistan
not terrorism ?
What was that agreement ? where and with whome
US made agreement ?
with dictators and their puppets installed regimes, painted
stooges, arranging meeting prior to elections between
US Ambassador and Pakistani election commissioner
in commissioner’s office, You don’t sound very normal,
madame !
Since 7 years USA declared OBL as terrorist, where is he ?
why are American not efficient in eliminating OBL ? he
is,on the contrary in regular contact with you, he sends
his love declarations on video which US department, after
improving the screen and language present it to its circle
of loyal clients !!
a “designated and elevated as No. Enemy of USA “.
American are fake, liars, and exterminators.
You are definitely trying to justify American war-mongering.
I re-confirm my first comment with rigour !!
As for your WashintonPost, they are famous for
” printing received news from TelAviv desk ” just like US
American dollar’s and its de-valued economy.
I agree with a lot of what Heather says. I think as far as the first question is concerned, justifiable may be a harder conclusion to come to, as opposed to maybe “necessary?” I think there may be times where it is necessary, but still not justifiable really, as was pointed out by Heather it runs contrary to principles of sovereignty. For me, I suppose the question is when is it really necessary? Don’t even know if that makes complete sense but bear with me. I think that it can be deemed necessary when the American’s have a high level target, and they refuse to share intelligence with the Pakistanis, and/or the Pakistanis do not at that moment have the capability to strike. THEN I think it is necessary and that too only if it can be done with guaranteed precision and success. If it is not precise and the civilian population suffers then again both involved governments alienate themselves and take two steps back. I think the American’s need to show more respect and trust for the Pakistani military, and in return the Pakistani military has to show that despite the ISI they can be a trusted partner. That is the key to limiting civilian casualties and achieving as you put it, only al-qaeda and Taliban casualties. If the two countries have this trust and respect they can share intelligence better, communicate and work together to maximize success in any operation. When the US strikes without Pakistan’s consent or even knowledge, it’s embarrassing for Pakistan, especially when it’s inaccurate, and a lot of the time it’s inaccurate because they don’t communicate with the Pakistani’s in the first place. A cycle perpetuating constant error and the further erosion of trust. If their is a partnership in the true sense of the word, American technology can be put to good use in the region, both in the hands of Americans and/or through Pakistani means. Unfortunately, in every conflict there will always be civilian casualties no matter how precise the intelligence and weaponry although they can be limited and it comes down to the cost benefit equation as always. The local population will only be satisfied with Pakistanis working together (with the US) against rogue elements if they see the Americans are helping them through the Partnership with Pakistan Act and other such initiatives. That is what will win the hearts and minds and can even the slightest measure of success in that region. And for the last question I think it will affect the olive branch, if again, the development is not taken into consideration and a few of the above things mentioned. I think the Palestine question will hold more weight in affecting Obama’s so-called ‘olive branch.” Taking the question of Kashmir into consideration and taking an active role in solving the Kashmir conflict will further solidify Pakistan’s trust and relationship with the US. He (Obama) doesn’t have to solve the problem, just show some interest and commitment. It’s a two way street, and what started out as America’s war, spilled dangerously into Pakistan where the conditions were ripe. Another important factor to this whole cross-border thing which goes unnaccounted for is the complete failure of American troops to guard the border on the Afghan side. I mean, if militants are crossing over on to the Afghan side with ease, how is that only Pakistan’s fault. I remember reading a story like a year and a half ago showing how few Border posts were manned by soldiers on the Afghan side, and the Pakistani side far outnumbered the American/Afghan side. There is a serious need for nation-building within Afghanistan which is a major source for a lot of this and that also has to be solved by the Obama administration. If the Taliban don’t see Afghanistan as an opportunity to be seized, then they will be trapped within the region of Pakistan they operate from (they also flourish in Kandahar and other provinces inside Afghanistan). Basically, in the end the US needs to nation build in afghanistan and pakistans tribal areas, build trust with the pakistani govt., the pak govt. has to earn that trust, and the Americans need to show a committment to Pakistans economy and the Kashmir crisis.
I’m confused over whether the U.S. has actually gotten the Pakistani government’s permission. If they did, why would Zardari call for an end to the U.S. air strikes, unless he was putting up a front for his constituency? Very strange.
http://www.geo.tv/1-28-2009/33774.htm
If the U.S. drone attacks are perceived as U.S. aggression, then it won’t matter whether Obama is extending an olive branch to the Muslim World.
A lot of the time there are backdoor deals made which the government makes with the US, but cannot say publicly that they allowed. And in some cases I think the American’s just go in without permission. Although, it would make more sense that permission is granted and the government just bullshits the people. That would help to avoid any unnecessary confusion of the Pakistani military shooting down American military personnel, drones.
Rafay Kashmiri-
I have gathered that you reside in Europe, so I am intensely curious – when was the last time you were back in Pakistan?
Ugh, even if it was a backdoor deal, they shouldn’t say the OPPOSITE publicly – that just incites the public even more!
But then it wouldn’t be a backdoor deal!ahahahhah and with zardari in power do you think he feels comfortable making a front-door(?) deal. The guy lives in the backyard and the only access there is through the backdoor..ahahahhahaa..not that it wasn’t happening under mushy though..
I did a quick search and here is an article on the drones agreement: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/02/deal-lets-us-drones-strike-bin-laden/
It was made by Musharraf, but Zardari will be compelled to maintain it if he wants American toys, which it seems he does. I agree with shaheryar mirza, Zardari is pulling an about face and trying to gain popularity and credibility by blaming the Americans and witholding the full story. Apparently that’s a political maneuver that spans nationalities.
I also agree wtih shaheryar mirza that Americans need to show more respect for Pakistan, and vice versa. I think it was HUGE that Obama’s first official interview was with Al Arabiya, way to send a message. If I learned anything from Bush, it’s that “shit flows downhill”- and if you take a shitty attitude towards a country or a religion or a people and you are in a leadership position, everyone beneath you will listen and a lot of them will agree with you because they trust you. I’ve seen it within so many Americans who adopt the “us VS them” mentality and think all Muslims are to blame for what happened on September 11 because “they” hate “our” freedom and way of life, according to the President. It’s time to change the rhetoric, to realize we have more in common than we do in differences, and to work towards a relationship based on mutual understanding and improved security. I think Obama is on track, 7 days in.
That Washington Post article wasn’t some story leaked from another country, it was actually an editorial from the President of your country (regardless of whether or not you live there, you seem to feel the deep seeded sense of responsibility only a proud citizen experiences). You may not agree with the policies of your government, and you may disagree with the “puppets installed regimes, painted
stooges”, but I suggest you take that up through community work and building democratic infrastructure. Laying all the blame at the feet of America will not improve the situation on the ground- sure, there is enough blame to go around, but that isn’t going to help you achieve your ultimate goal. Oh, and I am indeed “strange.”
Rafay Kashmiri is in reality a pro-war propagandist.
It’s just like how Ann Coulter tends to influence moderate listeners to the left. Her base loves her, but moderates hate her hardliner neoconservative viewpoint.
Rafay in reality encourages warmongering and deaths of Muslims by his insanely inflammatory hate speech.
Like this little nugget: “Muslims have eternal right to get them [Americans] on their territory and liquidate them in retaliation.”
I just finished reading Steve Coll’s Ghost Wars and would highly recommend it to anyone interested in the history of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This topic is discussed in-depth in Coll’s book, and what Shaheryar says is true – the US and Pakistan have made loads of backdoor deals over the years, only to have each country act in opposite to what they agreed on – particularly Pakistan, as from the 1970s onwards Pakistan’s leaders have had to balance Western-looking politics with pro-Taliban/radical Islam influences from the military and ISI. It’s no surprise Zardariji is saying one thing and doing another – he watched his wife do the same thing for years!
Oh, and I think Shaheryar and Heather have hit it right on the money – America needs to show more respect and legitimate interest/investment in Pakistan and Afghanistan before any sort of advancement can take place. Likewise, it’s up to Pakistan to follow through on things and not flip-flop between pro- and anti-Western sentiment.
I don’t see the ‘necessity’ that Shaheryar talks about in regard in spending tens or hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to own and operate drone aircrafts, a fresh inventory of missiles, and all the other costs associated with these operations. That money is desperately needed in other areas of the economy right now. Obama is increasing government spending and liquidity to levels that are raising concerns over potential hyperinflation of the dollar.
The real threat to the United States is a total economic meltdown, not terrorism in rural areas of Pakistan.
This global recession has proved that keynesian economics is not an effective model. Governments have no wealth, only the ability to redistribute it. The constant warfare state is not sustainable. Increasing the money supply for military spending does not stimulate the economy, it burdens it. The US government needs to protect itself from the REAL threat, and shrink the size of itself.
No more “necessary” drone aircraft purchases! Can’t afford it!
@HGW,
All you were capable to do was denying, denying and
repeating what American war-mongering policies,
dondemned by me and half of the world,
comapring is called stubborness and answer-less
consistance !
try to answer even one sentence of my accussitons with
concrete argument and defence ! otherwise drop it !
@Heather,
though you cofirmed my doubts, but the rest
of your second comment is very classical USA dreamland
symphony with old 78 rmp nostalgic near to end era !!
HIS MASTER’S VOICE.
USA is a Dictator-manufacturer, you just confirmed !
and this is lethal and toxic, pollution for entire humanity.
cheers
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss: http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YTJiM2U0MDIwYzgwYzVhMWViMDRlMDY4Mjc4NzMyOWU=
@Mirza ji,
your two hours long donkey-cart ride is worth an
American Museum, mate, well done !! your logic sounds
very very American ( 18 years old ).
What is “78 rmp nostalgic near to end era”?
Rafay your ideas do NOT represent “half of the world.”
When you say you want to “liquidate them in retaliation”, you’re isolating yourself from 99.9% of the world, who do NOT support blanket death sentences upon masses of innocent people.
Own up to what you are: an advocate of war crimes and a propagator of bigotry.
@HGW- Thanks for the response. Whether or not the Americans should be committing themselves to the rural areas of Pakistan or even Afghanistan for the matter is not the argument I am making. The fact remains that they have made the commitments to be there and fight a war. Whether they should be there in the first place is irrelevant because the decision has already been made-how to move forward is the question that needs to be addressed. While the American financial crisis is a problem that is a priority for the Americans, the Obama administration has already committed to raising the non-military aid to Pakistan which is money well-spent, for Pakistani purposes. I agree that the Americans are in unsustainable wars, but as long as they are in these wars they have to spend the money wisely, and putting more money in development is better than handing it to the Pakistani military. How much American’s spend on their drones is not a Pakistani concern, but how and when those drones are used on Pakistani soil is a Pakistani concern. The “necessity” argument does not hold any bearing on Americas necessity to be in Afghanistan, but rather when it is justifiable/necessary for cross border incursions into Pakistan-as Kalsoom’s original question was posed. Cross-border incursions wouldn’t occur on Pakistani soil if the Pakistani military was able to control the tribal areas. I for one, do not believe it is in the country’s interest to allow the Taliban and al-Qaeda to impose their writ on the state through the tribal regions. Therefore, the more help that Pakistan can get in fighting those elements in those regions, the more Pakistan has to benefit. What I suggest is a more multi-faceted and nuanced approach to the war there, as opposed to the strategy of the last eight years which lacked in development and zero communication/sincerity between the two states. What has happened with the drone attacks in those areas in the past is unfortunate and counter-productive most of the time, but if the Americans insist on doing so, then I suggest some agreements and greater communication is encouraged between the two governments. I am not an advocate of cross-border incursions-but chances are they are not going away until Pakistan takes more responsibility, and the Americans hold up their end of the bargain. Until then, there should be a method to the madness.
@rafay
First of all it is near impossible to decipher your sentences. I am not sure if I should take something as an insult because I can barely figure out what it is you are trying to say. The most common words out of your replies are “israel,nazi, zionist, american, neocon, mossad, raw, ISI etc etc” Judging by how you throw those words around, you don’t seem to be the least bit educated as to what any of those words mean or those organizations actually do. Your logic is reactionary, angry and uneducated at best. Combine that with your minimal grasp of the English language and you become completely unintelligible. You are skilled at throwing insults around, and that is after all the only refuge of the ignorant. I have refrained from responding to your previous insults but I feel that you take advantage of that. If you want to make an argument than make an argument (in decipherable English). But I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that your insults are just counter-productive and dull.
hahaha.. (@ shehryars comment to rafay)
I understand that, in the short run, how much money the US commits to Pakistan in the form of military aid or expenditures on equipment like drones is of no concern to Pakistan. In the long run, if the US economy does collapse, Pakistan will most certainly collapse as well.
Because the rupee is essentially tied to the dollar via all sorts of financial instruments like dollar-denominated debt, Pakistan risks sliding into a deep depression that could lower the standard of living to levels unseen before. The dollar will cushion its own drop with currencies like the rupee. What happens if interest rates on Pakistan sovereign debt go to 20% or 30%? US treasury bonds themselves now have a junk bond rating. Forget about drone strikes, how are people going to eat if a kilo of flour costs a lakh rupees? The Pakistan economy is artificial, no decoupling will occur whatsoever in the event of a US meltdown. The rupee is deeply embedded to the dollar and can’t survive without everlasting aid from the US and its financial agents. I think it’s very important to consider the economic consequences of a foreign policy.
I realize that building roads and schools in Pakistan sounds nice in a light-hearted, do-gooder sort of way. The reality is the US is broke, Pakistan is broke, and can’t expect to have endless amounts of aid. Who cares if Pakistan can’t control the tribal areas anyway?
Pakistan should be focusing its attention AWAY from fighting militants, and onto creating policies consistent with fiscal conservatism. The first goal of Pakistan should be real GDP growth, creating more factories and more production, not maintaining a tight grip over security in totally irrelevant areas.
You make a valid point that if the american economy completely collapses, so does pakistan’s. Fair enough. While there is potential for that, it is still a hypothetical situation and I understand that you are making the point that if the US continues with it’s current economic trends then it will lead to that. That being said, if that happens their is a whole new ballgame, and God only knows what happens. Although I think you underestimate the bearing that security has on a country’s economy. No one wants to invest in Pakistan because of security and of course corruption. Security is something that the Pakistan government should at the very least get a handle on. What goes on in the tribal areas has repercussions within the cities of Pakistan and affects the economy as a whole. If extremist violence perpetuates throughout the whole country, is there any real hope for a growing or sustainable economy? When you say that ‘who cares’ what’s going on in the tribal areas, it ignores the repercussions it has on a country as a whole. What happens in the tribal areas, and places like Swat, cripples the countries tourism industry and as a result people aren’t even willing to visit the cities. Militancy is unacceptable at any level. If the tribal areas are left alone, those ideologies being imposed on the people there threaten to spread and erode civil liberties and any semblance of secularism left within Pakistan. Which in my opinion is disastrous, and of course that is a matter of opinion. It is also a matter of protecting the fabric of your society and your culture. Whatever money is allocated for foreign spending is allocated for foreign spending. The argument about how much money America should be spending outside of their country is best left to the American people, but if they choose to spend a certain amount on Pakistan/Afghanistan then schools and roads are not just a “do-gooder” notion. The key to giving poor and desperate people a viable alternative to Taliban rule is by providing them with an incentive. Development is the only real incentive which will allow those people not to fall into favor with the Taliban and their like. I understand that Pakistan has to concentrate on its economy but I don’t think that security is completely inconsequential in the equation, and today it has more bearing than in recent times.
Being competitive with industrial powerhouses like China and India requires a different direction, it requires a move away from this national security state as we have it now. Pakistan has never had control over tribal areas. How on earth are tribal militants supposed to somehow affect the output of entire industrial segments all of a sudden? I think that’s very unrealistic, these people have no resources to do anything of the sort. Tourism is obviously not an industry that should be emphasized in Pakistan, it’s a horrible brand name for foreign tourists. If you’re talking about domestic tourism, Swat has been substituted for Muree or plenty of other peaceful destinations. It’s basically net zero, and that’s only a tiny segment of overall domestic consumption. Probably 99% of Pakistan is free of any Taliban influence. It’s vastly overstated and causes economic resources to be dangerously misallocated.
And the goal is not to increase consumption in the first place, it’s to increase production, to increase wealth. And just suppose it did spill over into cities. As long as factories are adequately self-secured (most are in Pakistan), I don’t think militancy in tribal areas is going to have any real affect on the output of some chemical factory even 10 miles away, for example. It’ll just create a boom for the private security guard market in that area, and a boom for the real estate in an industrial sector in another city. What WILL increase the output of that hypothetical factory would be lowered taxes, lowered import duties, fewer regulations, and most important a halt to inflationary pressures by the State Bank. All these moves will essentially withdraw resources away from the government and redirect them back into the economy, in the hands of the people. This can’t be done if we’re all caught up in our security, diverting wealth away from industries, and into fighting some group of gangsters in a village that’s virtually insignificant when compared to the enormous Pakistan army. And my guess is that by increasing employment and overall standard of living, you’ll have less incentive for young kids to join the Taliban. They’ll be too busy listening to ipods and and playing video games
@ private conference between a fake American and a
fake ” Pakistanian ” donkeys and mules amusements
impressing anybody ?
Once again non of you is capable to answer one
small sentence, instead, Half of the world protested and
came out in millions on all the continents.
Simple intelligence is missing in your responses !!
just check the bullshit both of you have written on
Pakistan’s economy. A donkey speaks English, what does
it change ?
just look at the quality of dialogue of two
@ Listen to donkey one, to HGW (Holy Grand Wolfowitz )
” you make a vaild point that if the American
economy completely collapses, so does Pakistan’s.
Fair enough. ”
(US having 1300 trillion US$ deficit, borrows money from
China to lend it to Pakistan ) State Departement’s desk
“theories” copied by the author.
@ donkey two replies,
” Pakistan has never had control over tribal areas. ”
again State departement’s ” theories” assumptions to
justifiy sending in armies ! and suck blood .
just went thru the missive full of nonsenses.
wow.. I honestly have no idea what this person is saying.. can someone translate?
@ CHUP! Editor – Kalsoom for your comment on January 28, 2009 at 11:03 am
I agree that such statement incite the public but more so against the US and not the local government. Also it makes local leader seen as someone who is standing against the might of USA and there might be a thinking that it will make locals sympathetic towards there leaders.
I also feel that USA does not really mind if they are being made villains till the time they have necessary go ahead to get the job done.
Sometimes such things work, sometimes they backfire!!!
@HGW,
you have certainly forgotten your Latin ! mate,
have you been copying your comment from American
Neocons ?
it does look like !! then you got a henchman
type ” Musharaffian Yes Sir ” and you continue admiring
each other, master & subject relationship.
yours and Mirza’s crap in two comments, can not
change the course of history,
USA has been already, in priciple, declared Bankrupt and
economically failed State by required conditions, rules,
Priciples, standards, speculative future market basis of no
one but your very own
WORLD BANK, or even IMF,
please check with Paul Wolfowitz or Strauss-Kahn
you guys don’t even read newspapers and or watch TV
are you on this planet ??
you know you tube ? among 50 revelations on US economy’s
disaster and apocalips, simply just watch
David Walker US Comptroller General’s alarming warnings.
I hope this much English, atleast you understand,
Pendoos!
@ typo : please read apocalyptic, what an end !!
Sameer-
I agree with you – the statements Pakistan’s officials make is more to make them look like the good guy and the U.S. the bad guy, and I think you’re right – I don’t think the U.S. cares (in the short-term) whether they’re increasing anti-U.S. sentiment or not, so long as they hit their targets. It doesn’t mean they shouldn’t care, but you’re right about that reality!
Rafay i read your message and most of it makes no logical or grammatical sense. For those few incomplete sentences which do, you obviously just copied and pasted from paleoconservative conspiracy-theorist websites, and you have no idea what they even mean. Why don’t u try to have one original thought? Maybe you should just stick to insulting people on a personal level? How about some yo-mama jokes? Because otherwise, as I’ve said before, you pretty much sound like an intoxicated homeless person rambling in a subway.
@HGW,
you are finished, you tried to defend indefensible,
and you are not even American, I wasted time with
jerks like you. case- toi
@ Heather,
its 78 rpm, ok ? 78 rounds per minute record in late
50s played on those huge grammophones, where you
needed to change the needle every time you put a record.
Btw Musharraf and Zardari must be hanged, as they are
American stooges and agents, and traitors to all
Pakistanis,their economy and integrity and
propose the beautifull Kashmala Tariq (PML-Q)
as PM