Pakistan, America's "ally".

[Bob]

Perhaps our American friends in the forum will find this video interesting, where this rat from Pakistan attempts to softly reprimand America (specifically Admiral McMullen regarding his recent allegations of high-level Pakistani political cooperation with the terrorist Islamist filth as well as high-level politicians calling into question the nature of America's current relationship with Pakistan) regarding recent public controversies between the two countries.

A few examples of this rhetoric from this Islamist filth:

"...public recrimination of any sort is not the answer, we feel that we are allies in this effort", in response to Admiral McMullen's allegation of the Pakistani ISI's cooperation with and support of terrorist groups.

"...we need to engage more, not disengage" - translation: give us more money so that we can keep supporting the murder of American and coalition soldiers, and well as support other terrorist interests.

She parrots the lie that is so commonly believed by Arab/Muslims and their verminous leftist allies that America "created" the Taliban. As if funding the Mujahedeen against the Soviet Union is the same as "creating" these terrorists and others like them. She then implies that America owes Pakistan the three-billion dollars per years it's been receiving since after 2001 (the total dollars is never mentioned by either this Islamist rat bitch or Zakaria), as America is largely responsible for the terrorism Pakistan is dealing with.

"We are willing to share the burden", as if Pakistan is doing America some sort of favour by allegedly combating terrorism with American dollars. She actually refers to American aid as "reimbursement".

Zakaria does a decent job countering her crap, as he is of course much more familiar with Pakistani and Indian issues than he is with, say, Israel.

Basically, this rat bitch is spitting in the face of America. And the show goes on...

Edited October 9, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

There was a second part of the interview which I can't find on YouTube, but I saw it last week when the episode aired on Sunday. I remember Zakaria asking this rat whether or not (conservative) Islam needed reformation/modernization, and he referenced an example of savage Islamic law in Pakistan: blasphemy laws for which the guilty as executed. I'm sure you all can guess what her answer was to that question.

To be clear, I think it's extremely rare for someone to actually be charged, convicted, and executed for blasphemy in Pakistan (we can probably count on one hand how many people have been condemned in past years). At the same time, however, those determined to be guilty of blasphemy outside of legal proceedings are typically executed by religious vigilantes in line with typical Islamist religious justice. Remember, Pakistani society and culture isn't inferior to Canada's.

[jbg]

"...we need to engage more, not disengage" - translation: give us more money so that we can keep supporting the murder of American and coalition soldiers, and well as support other terrorist interests.

*********

"We are willing to share the burden", as if Pakistan is doing America some sort of favour by allegedly combating terrorism with American dollars. She actually refers to American aid as "reimbursement".

Zakaria does a decent job countering her crap, as he is of course much more familiar with Pakistani and Indian issues than he is with, say, Israel.

Basically, this rat bitch is spitting in the face of America. And the show goes on...

Basically, aid should be conditional on supporting the policies of the donor. If a country is "independent" that means that it should not require aid to exist. If they need to seek aid, they need to give up some measure of independence.

[Michael Hardner]

Basically, aid should be conditional on supporting the policies of the donor. If a country is "independent" that means that it should not require aid to exist. If they need to seek aid, they need to give up some measure of independence.

I never thought of it that way before, but you're right - patronage goes two ways.

[Post To The Left]

Times did an interesting piece on just how far the alliance goes:

Pakistanis Tied to 2007 Border Attack on Americans

KABUL, Afghanistan — A group of American military officers and Afghan officials had just finished a five-hour meeting with their Pakistani hosts in a village schoolhouse settling a border dispute when they were ambushed — by the Pakistanis.

An American major was killed and three American officers were wounded, along with their Afghan interpreter, in what fresh accounts from the Afghan and American officers who were there reveal was a complex, calculated assault by a nominal ally. The Pakistanis opened fire on the Americans, who returned fire before escaping in a blood-soaked Black Hawk helicopter.

You've got to remember that Pakistan civil government has little or no control over the military or the ISI. There is so much going behind the scenes in that country that it is basically a basket case. I mean look at this:

Sexy TV host's popularity underscores Pakistan's contradictions

Reporting from Karachi, Pakistan — Raunchy. An inspiration. A sex kitten. Pakistan's Paris Hilton.

TV host Mathira Mohammad has been called all that and more. Love her or hate her, she's making waves, as critics in Pakistan accuse her of immorality and supporters laud her willingness to tackle taboo subjects such as sexuality, love and HIV/AIDS.

[Bob]

Basically, aid should be conditional on supporting the policies of the donor. If a country is "independent" that means that it should not require aid to exist. If they need to seek aid, they need to give up some measure of independence.

She actually contradicted herself at the end, where she stated that Pakistan doesn't want monetary aid from the USA, just a genuine friendship. Of course, she says this minutes after characterizing the three billion dollars a year America has been sending Pakistan since 2001 as "reimbursement", as if America is indebted to Pakistan for having "created" the Taliban and many other Pakistani/Afghani Islamist terrorist organizations.

But of course, the "conservative" George Bush thought it was a worthwhile investment, and Obama is following in his footsteps.

I may have mentioned it in here before, but if you remember Michael Ware from CNN, he stated that Pakistan's leverage on the USA is its ability to crank up American casualties in Afghanistan if it so chooses. In his opinion, the only way this rag-tag group of Islamist vermin known as the Taliban are able to sustain their "resistance" is because they are able to flee back into Waziristan (province of Pakistan) in between their raids/attacks. And since America doesn't operate with any seriousness across the border in Pakistan, and since Paksitan apparently doesn't exercises effective control over Waziristan (despite the three billion dollars per year in military aid plus alleged sharing of intelligence!), the Taliban are able to operate with impunity.

The real truth that you won't hear from anyone in the left-wing media? America doesn't prosecute the war aggressively enough. The fact that the world's sole superpower can't utterly destroy the Taliban tells you how unwilling America is to really leverage its military advantage. Here we are, a decade later, and American soldiers are still being sent back home in body-bags. And why? Because American leadership is afraid to kill "innocent" Afgani civilians. Nevermind the fact that winning the war decisively, which means killing enough of the enemy, crushing them, and making them realize that they will all be killed if they even lift a finger against the USA - is the most humane option in the long-term.

[bud]

u.s. should cut off aid to all these countries, including israel. this is where the $3 billion/year u.s. welfare checques to israel go:

Edited October 10, 2011 by bud