For years I have been insisting that the United States is being played for a patsy (or a dhimmi) by the Pakistanis, and the revelation last year that much of the money we gave them to fight terror was funneled to the terrorists themselves only confirmed that.
Now they are saying that they will defeat the Taliban within six weeks. Jeffrey Imm, however, has performed an extraordinary service by showing that the Pakistanis have been making this kind of promise for years. And what exactly do we have to show for it?
He does so with a simple list of links:
Pakistan: Taliban Defeated by Mid-December 2009 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/01/world/main5483270.shtml-- May 18, 2009: Pakistan will defeat Taliban and ensure peace: PM
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/world/05/18/09/pakistan-will-defeat-taliban-and-ensure-peace-pm-- February 25, 2009: Pakistan vows to 'defeat terror' with Obama
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/pakistan-vows-to-defeat-terror-with-obama-20090225-8hiy.html-- September 4, 2008: Pakistan's Zardari vows to work with US, defeat Taliban
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/04/2355925.htm-- August 10, 2007: Musharraf vows to fight extremism
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/08/12/pakistan.jirga/?iref=newssearch-- March 18, 2007: Bhutto - Taliban must be defeated in Pakistan this year
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\03\19\story_19-3-2007_pg3_1
http://www.pakistantimes.net/2007/03/18/top6.htm-- November 20, 2006: Pak president calls for multiple measures to defeat Taliban
http://english.people.com.cn/200611/20/eng20061120_323224.html-- September 15, 2005: Musharraf offers to fence in Taliban
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/musharraf-offers-to-fence-in-taliban/2005/09/13/1126377316418.html-- August 14, 2005: Pakistan's leaders vow to defeat terrorism
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-08-14-pakistan_x.htm
-- August 24, 2004: Pakistan Vows to Stop Taliban
http://nytimes.com/2004/08/24/international/asia/24stan.html?hp-- December 29, 2003: Pakistan toughens on militants
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1229/p07s01-wosc.htm-- February 11, 2002: Captures Point to Pakistan As Taliban Hiding Place
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/2-11-2002-11430.asp-- October 1, 2001: Taliban's days numbered: Musharraf
http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=2973-- September 16, 2001: Pakistan to Demand Taliban Give Up Bin Laden
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34440,00.html
Yes, but this time they really, really mean it!
" And what exactly do we have to show for it?"
a lot of misery and death administered by the Taliban and Islam...
AND this to boot..(if that's not reason enough for more drones or invasion)
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=25320
You'd think they would be keeping this info secreted to save NATO lives in light of recent attacks,but why should they,THEY don't give a rats ass about us. This is blatant informing,period.Here ya go taliban,just contact us if you need more help.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/137481/-British-soldiers-are-going-to-hell-
We should take the money we've been giving Pakistan and give it to India. I read a great article about how India could actually dismember Pakistan.
In any case, I find it objectionable that we get involved in intra-Islamic disputes. We should always support the non-Muslims, such as Israel, India and the southern Sudanese, and use air power and missiles to destroy Islamic WMD. And seize oil fields as needed from terrorist sponoring Islamic states, like Saudi Arabia.
Bravo, Jeffrey Imm! It would be difficult to imagine anything more telling or more succinct—or more depressing—than Pakistan's "vowing". over and over, to defeat Al Qaeda and other Jihadists, dating aback all the way to 9/11.
Except, of course, our swallowing the lies, every time.
To a large extent, by using only carrots and few sticks if any - we have exacerbated this problem:
- we pump billions into Pakistan, on the premise that they could get de-stabilized - thus creating a motivation, for the pakistani elite to ensure that they "do appear to be constantly unstable" - if they actually become a stable nation like say New Zealand, why would we pump billions into it. The Pakistani elite know that they have a good thing going - why should they give it up.
- we pump billions as long as the Pakistanis "appear to" fight the Taliban and arrest Al Qaeda - so, to make this give n' take realistic - the Pakistanis do a couple of things:
- arrest a Al-Qaeda number 3 every few months
- keep promising to fight the Taliban and under pressure sometimes actually bomb a few Taliban held areas, mostly killing and displacing innocent civilians
Now suppose, the Taliban were actually destroyed OR key Al Qaeda leaders were actually caught - wouldn't this free flow of billions actually stop - now, that wouldn't be much fun for the Pakistani elite, would it?
These things take time, like another 1,400 years or so.
Agree with jewdog - supporting Infidels is a good idea.
For those who say there is no fun or humor in islam - they're wrong. muslims are LTAO (laughing their *ss off) promising to destroy other muslims, while engaging in taqiyya and taking money from Infidels.
Read somewhere it's time to treat islam and muslims with the disrespect they deserve.
Jew Lover
The British were defeated in Afghanistan in 1842 by the treachery of their local allies, who joined with the enemy tribes to murder the [mostly civilian] contingent as they tried to get away.
The old pattern of betrayal has been repeating ever since in this Afghan/Pak region. We should know what to expect by now.
Consistent Muslim behaviour, as anyone who reads Flashman knows.
Trust Hindus infinitely more than Muslims. The former are honorable; the latter are not to be relied upon (to put it mildly). Case closed.
The meretriciousness of the government of Pakistan goes back fifty years, to the days of that useless "military alliance," CENTO. For fifty years the government of Pakistan has supported within its borders, or nearby, the persecution of Hindus and Christians (think of how American-educated Pinky Bhutto called for Jihad in Kashmir, or think of the Pakistani government's support for persecution of non-Muslims (the 400,000 Kashmiri Pandits who had to flee for their lives), its promotion of mass murder of civilians, including many non-Muslims and those local Muslims in what was then East Pakistan (the 1971 war against Bangladesh), its support for terrorist groups attacking not only Mumbai, but elsewhere in India, including New Delhi), the fooling of successive American governments, and especially of American generals, by Pakistani generals, holding themselves out as so much more trustworthy, so much more anti-Communist ("Islam is a bulwark against Communism" -- that was all those limited Dulles brothers, John Foster and Allen, need to know), so much more of an "ally" than bandunging Jawaharlal Nehru and marxisant, anti-American Krishna Menon.
For more on the history of how Pakistan has fiddled the Americans see the Six-Part Series on Pakistan put up here two months ago:
Fitzgerald: "We Walked Away From Them Twice," Or, What Exactly Does Robert Gates Know About Pakistan, And While We Are At It, What In God’s Name Does He Know About Islam? (Part Six)
Part One is here, Part Two here, Part Three here, Part Four here, and Part Five here.
Part 1:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/08/fitzgerald-we-walked-away-from-them-twice-or-what-exactly-does-robert-gates-know-about-pakistan-and.html
Part 2:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/08/fitzgerald-we-walked-away-from-them-twice-or-what-exactly-does-robert-gates-know-about-pakistan-and-1.html
Part 3:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/08/fitzgerald-we-walked-away-from-them-twice-or-what-exactly-does-robert-gates-know-about-pakistan-and-2.html
Part 4:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/08/fitzgerald-we-walked-away-from-them-twice-or-what-exactly-does-robert-gates-know-about-pakistan-and-3.html
Part 5:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/08/fitzgerald-we-walked-away-from-them-twice-or-what-exactly-does-robert-gates-know-about-pakistan-and-4.html
Part 6:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/08/fitzgerald-we-walked-away-from-them-twice-or-what-exactly-does-robert-gates-know-about-pakistan-and-5.html
Ajack - good point.
The Pakistanis appear to have got a pretty good racket going.
And guess what - the Indonesians seem to have inveigled Australia into doing something of similar stupidity.
That is: we are proposing to pay them money to keep 'asylum-seekers' (who seem to be, these days, mostly Mohammedan Males of Military Age, oddly enough) off our shores.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/24/2723037.htm?section=justin
Quote, just one paragraph:
'Indonesia's director-general of immigration has told the ABC Indonesia will need at least $50 million to adequately process asylum seekers.
"We need much more funding for advanced passenger processing development," he said.
"For one checkpoint we need at least $10 million and we have at least five checkpoints."'
Yeah, right, suurre: money money money gimme gimme gimme.
Indonesia are laughing all the way to the bank. I'm sure, now, that the supply of 'asylum seekers' 'en route to Australia', but 'found' and 'detained' by Indonesia, will *never* dry up. And Australia will keep on giving them money to 'catch' the 'asylum seekers'...and somehow lots will 'slip through' anyway, which will be the cue for demands for *more* money....
Libya has got Italy in precisely the same trap. 'Pay us not to send people on in your direction' (translation: pay us heaps of money in the vain hope that we will prevent part of the Hegira, or Muslim 'migration-invasion', from reaching your shores).
But nobody is allowed to impede the spread of Islam...Indonesia and Libya will take the money from Australia, and from Italy, and demand more, and more, and more, and just as Pakistan pretends to look busy, and catch a few small minor jihad gangsters now and again, they will 'look busy' and ostentatiously stop this or that boat; but somehow, many more will slip through (which will occasion demands for *more* money, since we could stop them if we had more money...yeah, sure), and the illegal immigrants/ invaders will keep right on coming...For how could either Indonesia or Libya really stop their fellow Muslims from going wherever they want to go? Especially when they are taking their Islam, bag and baggage, to fresh fields and pastures new.
How could Pakistan do anything different so long as this provision is in their Constitution:
227. Provisions relating to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah.
(1) All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah, in this Part referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such Injunctions.
Do any of our strategists actually read the Pakistan law, understand what it means, and take it into consideration when formulating policy?
We don't need Pakistan to defeat the Taliban, We did that a long time ago:
We have been assured that we will defeat terrorism on our own:
We have been defeating terrorism for decades!!:
“President Reagan last night pledged that the United States would fight a worldwide campaign to defeat terrorism…”
The Guardian (London), July 1, 1985 “Reagan promises to fight terrorism / US President on release of TWA hijack hostages from Lebanon”
“Vice President George Bush spoke out against terrorists at a July Fourth celebration in Bristol, N.H., saying the United States is ‘determined to defeat terrorism.’”
United Press International, July 5, 1985, Friday, “Americans celebrate Fourth of July”
“Secretary of State George Shultz said Sunday the way to defeat terrorism is by ‘using both barrels’”
United Press International, November 24, 1985, Sunday,
“"As we mourn these men and all other victims of terrorism, as we honor them, and as we offer our heartfelt condolences to the families of victims, let us remind the world that our reflection and remembrance fortify our determination to deter and defeat terrorism," Reagan said”
The Associated Press, October 22, 1986, Wednesday, President Asks Americans to Mourn Terrorism Victims Thursday
“u.s. secretary of state warren christopher today called for the international community, ‘including some of our key allies and friends,’ to defeat terrorism. ‘the recent bombing attacks in latin america and europe make clear that the effort to defeat terrorism requires a concerted international response’”
Xinhua News Agency, JULY 28, 1994, THURSDAY, u.s. calls for joint efforts to defeat terrorism
“"As Americans, we can and must join together to defeat terrorism wherever it strikes and whoever practices it," Clinton told the Disabled American Veterans convention.”
Daily News (New York), July 29, 1996, Monday, INSECURE AMID EXTRA SECURITY BILL PUSHES ANTI-TERROR MEASURES
We don't need no steenkin' Pakistan.
We don't need Pakistan to defeat the Taliban, We did that a long time ago etc, etc, etc...
..............................
Why, look—it's the Jihad-terrorist supporting "dave742" weighing in on the defeat of terrorism. For anyone who may not recall, "dave742" used the Hizb'allah logo as his avatar on the old IntenseDebate system, so we know where his sympathies lie.
Your cynicism about America, a free and great nation, which has had to take on tyrants of all sorts (Nazis, Communists, Islamic zealots, etc.) says far more about you than you realize. And America and freedom will prevail in the end, no thanks at all to Islam, which is a destroyer of real liberty. Ah, you're so f...ing clueless, as are all totalitarian ideologues.
Was there any point to all of those quotes? Or, do you just cut and paste things randomly? A child could plug in the word "terrorism" and come up with what you did, but that would not really prove anything. You might actually try addressing the contents of the article, or perhaps your caregiver could assist you with that.
I think you would have noticed that most monsters are terribly smug and arrogant before they fall on their faces. Hitler committed suicide in his bunker and Stalin probably met his end slowly from a good dose of rat poison(Beria). Uncle Joe's "Doctors' Plot" was not to be.
Qatari firm in talks to make "Prophet" Mohammad film
http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSL119466620091101
* Aims to help "bridge cultures"
* Educate about the "true meaning of Islam"
(Adds details on film, company's financial plans)
By Tamara Walid
DOHA, Nov 1 (Reuters) - An epic film about Islam's Prophet Mohammad backed by the producer of "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Matrix" is being planned with the aim of "bridging cultures".
Filming of the $150-million English-language movie is set to start in 2011 with American Barrie Osborne as its producer, Qatari media company Alnoor Holdings said on Sunday.
The film - in which the Prophet would not be depicted, in accordance with Islamic rules - is in development and talks are being held with studios, talent agencies and distributors in the United States and Britain, Alnoor said.
Osborne told Reuters the film would be an "international epic production aimed at bridging cultures."
"The film will educate people about the true meaning of Islam," he said.
Alnoor said it wanted to attract the "best international talent" to star in the movie.
Alnoor, which was set up this year to take advantage of opportunities in the entertainment sector, focuses on international film production, Arabic production and animation and wants to acquire distressed assets in the U.S. and British film industries.
Raja Sharif, vice president of international projects at Alnoor, told Reuters in a telephone interview he expected to conclude deals next year.
He said the company was not interested in large studios but was targeting distributors, sales agents and possibly post-production and production facilities.
Qatar, the world's largest exporter of liquefied natural gas, aims to become a cultural hub in the region. Earlier this week, it held the first Tribeca Doha Film Festival attended by regional and international filmmakers, stars, agents and distributors.
(Editing by Firouz Sedarat and David Cowell)
You need remember only one thing in that difficult equation:
Pakistan-aid army-terrorism. In Pakistan there are actually 19 $ billionaires. Seven of them are ex-army officers, some as lowly as Major, all having one thing in common. They fought the Taliban/drug traffic.
Whew, there's so many things wrong with that, I dunno where to start.
First of all, it's absolutely repugnant that a person who made movies like Matrix and LotR should make something positive about Mo. Especially considering the theme of those series.
Second of all ... how can you have a movie about someone without featuring that someone?
The folks who do 'South Park' should read Mr Spencer's Blogging the Quran, plus 'The Truth About Muhammad', browse about in Al-Tabari and the Hadith, have a look at Ibn Ishaq, and watch a goodly sample of Fr Zakaria Botros' critical tours of the Horrible Hadith. The comic 'Muhammad's Believe It...Or Else!' over at Ali Sina's might also prove inspirational.
Then they could do a no-holds-barred series lifting the lid on the whole can of horrid writhing worms that is Abu al-Kassim alias Mohammed, dubbed 'Ha-Meshugga', The Mad One, by Maimonides.
Just imagine what the South Park satirists could do with the Mohammed and Aisha 'romance', if they could only muster the courage.
Imagine how they'd cover the assassinations, of poets and suchlike.
Or Mohammed encountering the flute-player, sticking his fingers in his ears, and bolting.
The episode of the puppy under Mohammed's bed, and the hunting down and killing of the dogs.
And the episode of the Khaybar Oasis and the seizure of Safiyya after the torture-murder of her husband.
And all the goings-on in Muhammad's harem.
And camel urine. And people drinking Mohammed's pee, and anointing themselves with his sweat.
And toilet pebbles, and how to outsmart the jinn that live in the outhouse/ latrine hole.
And so on, and on, and on.
Material for a full-length R-rated or MA-rated satirical comedy series.
Worry01:
"Was there any point to all of those quotes?"
I though it was clear. I guess I can explain it. First, I think it's funny to talk about defeating the Taliban when we already did that 8 years ago. Second, I think it's funny that this thread is about Pakistan's broken promises about defeating terrorism since 9/11, when our own leaders have been making the same promises for over 3 decades, and we don't seem to be getting closer to getting that job done than Paksitan is. Maybe we should be criticizing our own leaders promises. I don't think we've fulfilled our promises to win the war on drugs, either. I guess I will try to explain myself better next time.
That way, they can leave out the money quote - "War is deceit." Which Pakistan has been using since Day One.
Robert, I'm sitting back and enjoying the show. 43 was not very insistent and allowed a few excesses we should have stomped on. Fighting a two front war on a budget is stupid. So AfPak was a holding action.
Obama, one the other hand, has very loudly and repeatedly declared Iraq was the wrong war and Afghanistan was the right war, the incandescently necessary war. You cannot deal with Afghanistan alone. It's an AfPak war. So he has a very strong reason to lean much harder on the Pakistanis than Bush ever had. Politically it will be devastating for Obama to pull out of AfPak. He's pressuring the Pakistanis tremendously as evidenced by some of the recent sacrifices of Taliban bishops and rooks. And he's facing Baba Boxer now, who is saying "No new soldiers to Afghanistan."
If it all were not so deadly to our futures it'd be a fun show if you stocked up enough soda and popcorn. Both Obama and Pakistan are now officially between a rock and a hard place squeezing each other for breathing room.
{^_^}
Dave742- Please do try harder. It's a steep and rocky climb but were all sure you'll get there, someday.
I’m surprised you didn’t manage to work into our written tripe any fantasies about nanothermites. And if you’re going to explain, try backing your statements with facts rather than opinions and assumptions. All you’ve done is grab headlines without context to state what? That you’re a left wing asshat making a strawman argument worthy of a sock puppet?
Kaffir Kanuck:
"All you’ve done is grab headlines without context to state what?"
I have explained why. If you can't understand, I would simply stop trying.
Re:
"-- September 16, 2001: Pakistan to Demand Taliban Give Up Bin Laden
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34440,00.html"
See the outcome in the following:
"It is an open secret in Washington now that a delegation of senior Pakistani army officers, sent to Afghanistan prior to the US invasion ostensibly to convince the Taliban to step down, actually spent their time instructing the Taliban on how to protect their weapons from the impending US aerial bombing."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EH30Df01.html
Al Taqiyya (deception) in action.