Musharraf Spilling the Beans—Why Now?

HP looks like the general and manmohan singh did make some deal..usually the UN general assembly speech is all about support (moral and political) for Kashmiri struggle. Not much of that this time around, it was mostly about talibans being pashtuns.

Musharaff has done the most for de-islamization of pakistan..he takes responsibility for his actions without divine perspiration, this alone will go a long way. Overall he seems to have screwed khassi sindhis big..water issues, and handing over the sindh jagir to MQM. I guess he figured sindhis are ..

okhla99 writes <<< Looking out for ``national interest`` does include ensuring that the nation does not go the Iraq or Afghan way which it surely would have done post 9/11 had Musharraf not adopted the course he did. >>>

Then you agree there is no nation when the ``nation`` surrenders itself to the wishes and wills of another (as a slave). Independance surrendered in this fashion can be described by many titles but certainly not by saying it was ``national interest``, it goes against every single definition of ``nation state``. So far in the US ``farce on terror``, it`s only success has been the capitulation of Pakistan without a fight, others have more ghairat. What Musharraf did (by his explicit admission) is a case of ``high treason`` given the definition of nation state and not ``national interest``- understand what a ``nation`` means.

In addition to #49 Turkey did not capitulate, it refused to allow US invasion of Iraq through its territory. What did the US do, it circumvented the political in Turkey and was talking directly to its military, even that did not work, and I don`t see them bombed into ``the stone age``. That is an example of ``national interest`` when a nation does something as an independant entity and is not bullied by those who treat it as slaves and dependants.

#45 by - --...- --

But you have to hand it to the General, that he is capable of calling a spade a spade. A rose with any other name, still smells the same.

Yaar you are overestimating the General`s straight-talking ways. He is able to do that only because he has the uniform on. In the past, he has made it clear that he is able to tackle contentious issues only because he feels stronger as a general than a mere politician. Let`s see if he can take off the uniform and be the same straight-talking fellow he pretends to be now.

yes..well said HP..

the PAF, MIA in Kargil, would have bombed the tribals in the NWFP anyway..

the paki army would have been fighting the tribals anyway....

pakis being singled out for deportation is actually a good thing for pakis..

pakis facing extra scrutiny and PIA not being allowed direct flights to the US is actually a very good thing for Pakiland and pakis..

advantage pakis....

there`s self-deluded, and there`s paki-deluded..

#51 by masadi

True. That is why I had asked the question on the other board that ``Could US actually have carried out its threat, and at what cost?``. But noone answered. I think the Turkish example proves that US would have backed off. Turkey is nowhere near Pak but it resisted firmly and US could do nothing. However, the fact remains Pak had no reason to go to war on behalf of Taliban who had turned against Pak(#42).

THE SITUATION ROOM

BLITZER: Let me read to you also from the book ``In the Line of Fire.``

You write this: ``Those who habitually accuse us of not doing enough in the war on terror should simply ask the CIA how much prize money it has paid to the government of Pakistan.``

We asked the CIA how much prize money they have paid to the government of Pakistan. They have no comment.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: We asked former intelligence officials, who say that no such money was paid. They give rewards to individuals, but no prize money to Pakistan.

(CROSSTALK)

MUSHARRAF: I don`t know whether this is to the government of Pakistan. I don`t think I wrote the government of Pakistan.

BLITZER: The book says, on page 237, ``the government,`` ``paid to the government of Pakistan.``

You want to revise that?

MUSHARRAF: Yes. I think that, if it is written ``government of Pakistan,`` yes.

It has to -- these people, there are so many of them that had money of $5 million there, declared, had money. So, that has to be given.

Now, to whom it is given and how it is given, I don`t even know the details. But, however, there is only -- there is not one person who is involved in these operations. There is a whole organization and a whole operation that goes on of intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

How the money gets distributed, it is distributed to people, certainly. So, I`m very clear that this money does get distributed. I`m not even involved in who distributes and who exactly gets.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: The U.S. Justice Department does confirm they have given money to Pakistani citizens for help.

MUSHARRAF: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: ... resulting in the arrests of certain high-level officials.

(CROSSTALK)

MUSHARRAF: Certainly not the government, and not the government. And I would like -- if I have written the government of Pakistan, no, government of Pakistan has not received anything.

BLITZER: All right.

#55 by arjun_macaca

And your point?

#56 by Zeemacaca

And your point?

The point is that the US attorney general`s observations about Pakis during Aimal Kansi`s trial are not too off the mark.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060313080211207

Excerpt:

The information given to PAC by FO reveals the effectiveness of lobbyists from Pakistan and India and how both spend millions of dollars to protect their interests,” an insider told TFT. “If this information is correct, then it is not only damaging for Pakistan but also for the US where some people publicly degraded Pakistan by saying that ‘Pakistanis will sell their mothers for a dollar’.”

Arjun-m

A very warm welcome back. And my tax dollars, well they are also used to welcome you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G7gq7GQ71c

but the US did use Incirlik Air Base in both wars in Iraq. Unless I am mistaken, Incirlik Air Base is in Turkey.


#52 HH agreed. That is the discipline ofthe army. Hence heis able to do things which others would think unthinkable. You have accept the fact that FOR Pakistan he has done the right thing upto a point nothwithstandingthe stuff Arjun_m so forcefully highlights.

Unfortunately in the international arena he will have to be measured by these metrics (ARjun_M`s list). Internally he has done good!

Re:HP#26

[...Pakistan and the Pak army have a long history of working with the US and especially with the US DOD. Show me one incident in the last 60 years when Pakistan was on the wrong side of the US.....]

Bravo!! What a honorable history!! Dont you feel any shame in writing something like this? Pakistan is a sovereign country that does not deserve to be sovereign. In the past, India had close ties to the Russians but it was never in bed to such an extent.

Actually I am not that surprised. History has shown that any invader to the Indian subcontinent met any real opposition at Panipat, which is in India. Their journey through Pakistan would be a cakewalk as Pakistanis would simply line up with garlands to welcome them. Once they crossed over to India they would face a real fight from Rajputs, Sikhs and Marathas. Most of the opposition to British rule also happened in India, while Pakistan produced feudal lords who were British chamchas.

Looks like this habit of rolling over and surrendering is so ingrained in Pakistani genes that even with 1000 years of Islam it hasnt changed one bit. One can only imagine what ultimate cowards Paksitanis were when they were hindus in the past. It is good that you guys converted to Islam, at least you are not shaming hindus any more but shaming all muslims.

but the US did use Incirlik Air Base in both wars in Iraq. Unless I am mistaken, Incirlik Air Base is in Turkey. And Turkey is part of NATO hence you cannot use the same yard stick to compare it with Pakistan.

#52 HH agreed. That is the discipline ofthe army. Hence heis able to do things which others would think unthinkable. You have accept the fact that FOR Pakistan he has done the right thing upto a point nothwithstandingthe stuff Arjun_m so forcefully highlights.

Unfortunately in the international arena he will have to be measured by these metrics (ARjun_M`s list). Internally he has done good!

#57 by ugly_hyd_macaca

Sure but CIA said the same thing about you as well ..but added the phrase MEAN BASTARDS ... i.e. ...

“When I queried how and why the Indians sold weapons that they knew would be used against their friends the Soviets, the CIA officer replied `The Indians are mean bastards, not trustworthy at all. For money they would even sell their mothers`.”

Only thing is they were right in your case but wrong in Pak`s case because Pak has not turned in UBL or Zawahir in for $25 mio each.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#60 What did you smoke for breakfast?