It's official - Pakistan stripped of 2011 WC co-host status

Discussion in 'West Asia & Africa' started by EnlightenedMonk, Apr 28, 2009.

  1. thakur_ritesh

    thakur_ritesh Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,434
    Likes Received:
    1,724
    Location:
    Land of the GODS - "Dev Bhomi".
    completely agree with paaji and yusuf on ipl and please ipl is no way more important than our national security and if the MHA felt that security personnel would have been over streached in delivering their duty then that would have been a breach of security in itself. imagine the amount of violence this election has seen, now think had there been ipl and the focus would have been more on providing fool proof security to the ipl teams then one would only wondered the kind of violence one would have witnessed in the election process.

    i wrote a piece just when this controversy was brewing up, x posting as i dont want to make another post on the same as i think i will be repeating myself.



    IPL – between national security and corporate interests



    as the events unfold on the scheduling or postponement of IPL, it seems a clear case of corporate interests in nexus with political masters trying to out do the national interests being perused by the ministry of home affairs. they say money speaks a language like none other and here again money is doing all the talking and forcing the concerned security agencies and the ministry of home affairs to submit to its demand when clearly there are definitive concerns to national security.

    the electronic media has played its part in the pushing the agenda of ipl and they have put a twist to it by clubbing the hosting of the event to national pride which if not conducted would be viewed as giving in to the demands of the terrorists. i recall these were the precise words used by pranoy roy when he said terrorists when attacked mumbai came with several demands and one such demand was to not play cricket in pakistan, (mind you the term demand was used by him to make his points clearer, since no such demands ever were put across) and what followed (the attack on sri lanka cricket team) is history. the media siding with ipl on hosting of the tournament is well understood as there remains a huge opportunity to generate revenues and profits and also the tactical understanding between them and the high and mighty owners of the ipl teams who have a lot at stake for if this event were not to happen there lays a prospect of losses which in these recession times are only going to increase their agony.

    all it will take is one terror attack on any of the ipl teams and all hell will break loose. terrorists have a clear cut agenda and that is to target high value targets through whom they are able to make their presence felt in both domestic and international media and be a part of headlines and they would have achieved what they had set for. such an attack if it were to happen would not only be bad for cricket in this part of the world but would have spiraling effect on the hospitality industry and would have detrimental effect on the inward investments and on the investor confidence.

    there have to be reasons as to why the ministry of home affairs does not seem to be all that willing to share security with ipl at a time when elections will be happening no matter what ever he might say as a cover up to it. it is clear that per se the terrorists just need to be successful once and that can happen even when the best of the security setup is put in place for nothing can be assured but still at a time when it is for sure that the security will have to be bifurcated between holding of elections and ipl then that risk of such an attack is tad bit more, and as it is most of the state governments are not comfortable by only providing the state security and are looking to the center for providing with central security as additional security measures. one can imagine the repercussions for any state government and for the central government during the election times if any such terror attack were to happen which might have a capacity to catch national and international headlines.

    i have not the slightest of the doubts that money power will win this battle but if the terror attacks were to happen then who would be held responsible, i am sure there will be no takers for that and the home minister will be nailed as everyone will come calling “i told you so”, shouldnt then lalit modi, ipl team owners and all such vested interests be prosecuted, but alas that shall never be the case. lets look at it the other way round, if we were to witness large scale violence of unprecedented nature in the elections as a result of “stressed out” security agencies which also might lead to people being killed, then who would take the responsibility or is it that no one is responsible for a life being lost till the time such an event does not make it to international media headlines.
     
  2. Daredevil

    Daredevil On Vacation! Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    11,613
    Likes Received:
    5,692
    Zardari was forced to sign the Swat Deal, says Holbrooke

    Zardari was forced to sign the Swat Deal, says Holbrooke

    Lalit K Jha
    Washington, May 5 (PTI) Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari had opposed a peace agreement with the Taliban in the Swat Valley but he was "forced to sign" the deal with the militants, Special US Envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke disclosed today.

    Testifying before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on Pakistan, Holbrooke informed the agitated US lawmakers that Zardari told him about this when he met the Pakistani President last night.

    Zardari arrived in Washington yesterday to attend the tri-lateral summit with his counterparts from the US and Afghanistan at White House tomorrow.

    Holbrooke said he already has net Zardari after his arrival.

    Referring to his meeting with Zardari, Holbrooke said the Pakistani President told him that "he had opposed the Swat deal" from the very beginning and that he was "forced to sign it." The deal was bound to fail and it has now failed, Holbrooke said, adding the Pakistani Army has now moved inside the Swat Valley to take action against the Taliban militants holed up there. PTI

    Zardari was forced to sign the Swat Deal, says Holbrooke
     
  3. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    21,921
    Likes Received:
    9,248
    I am sure the Taliban will understand that Zardari was forced to do it when they take over.
     
  4. pyromaniac

    pyromaniac Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    US in secret talks to secure Pak nuclear material

    United States and Pakistani officials have begun behind-the-scenes talks aimed at achieving a greater US role in securing Pakistan's
    nuclear materials, according to a US media report.

    This includes a proposal to ship some highly enriched uranium to the US for disposal, the Boston Globe reported Tuesday citing two unnamed "administration officials with direct knowledge of the discussions".

    The daily said if successful, the talks between non-proliferation specialists at the State and Energy departments and their Pakistani counterparts would mark a breakthrough in efforts to persuade Pakistan to accept greater assistance in preventing terrorists from obtaining nuclear fuel or the technology to build a nuclear weapon.

    "The Pakistanis take this very seriously," a senior US official involved in the talks cited by the Globe said. "Pakistan faces some unique challenges."

    Pakistan, which is believed to have as many as 100 nuclear bombs, has been highly secretive about its nuclear activities for fear that the US might try to destroy its arsenal or that its archenemy, nuclear-armed India, might launch a first strike, the Globe suggested.

    But the growing threat to the Pakistani government from the Taliban - and its allies in the Al Qaeda terrorist network - has given Pakistani leaders a new reason to cooperate with the US, the officials cited by the daily said.

    The US now provides some basic assistance to Pakistan in nuclear security. Measures include training Pakistani officials on export control and providing detection equipment for its seaports, airports, and border crossings to help thwart nuclear smuggling.

    However, the new measures under consideration would for the first time give the US access to some of Pakistan's nuclear ingredients, though not the actual weapons, which are reportedly stored unassembled under the control of a 10,000-member security force headed by a two-star general.

    Two of the key proposals under discussion are a joint programme to secure or destroy radioactive materials that could be used to make a crude nuclear device, and shipment to the US of some of the highly enriched uranium fuel used in Pakistani civilian power plants.

    The enriched fuel is believed to be sought by terrorists as possible material for a weapon of mass destruction, the officials cited by the daily said.

    The Globe said Pakistan's embassy did not respond to several requests for comment.

    US in secret talks to secure Pak nuclear material: Report - US - World - The Times of India


    America is trying to be the world's police isn't it?
     
  5. pyromaniac

    pyromaniac Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    The Dangers Of Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal

    In the years of the Cold War, the nuclear alarm would sometimes sound over a confrontation in Berlin in 1961 or the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. I can remember school kids burrowing under their desks in civil defense drills. But in the arms-control sessions I attended over the years, the consensus was that the world was less imperiled from weapons under reasonably stable control in Russia and the United States than the weapons that might fall into the hands of insurgents or terrorists in some Third World country with a tottering government.

    Pakistan today is a likely candidate for that description. Pakistan is believed to have about 60 nuclear weapons, originally assembled to match India's nuclear arsenal. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that they are "widely dispersed." Their control rests officially in the hands of the National Command Authority, including representatives of the government and the military. But that seems to be mainly for show, and it is probable that only a handful of the military elite has real knowledge of their location. Although the United States has given $100 million to protect the sites, American officials say, they have not been told where they are.

    President Obama says he is sure that the nuclear weapons are secure and the Pakistani government is aware of the danger of their falling into the wrong hands. But as Taliban militants widen their grip on more and more parts of the country, there is reason for apprehension.

    A Pakistani journalist now in this country, Ahmed Rashid, writes in The Washington Post that his country, threatened by the Taliban offensive, is faced with chaos. The National Security Council has been working on a comprehensive review of what might happen to Pakistan's nuclear weapons in an emergency.

    So over President Asif Ali Zardari's meeting with Obama hangs a pall of dread of what arms controllers have feared for a half century: the day of loose nukes in hostile hands.

    The Dangers Of Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal : NPR

    Another interesting article



    “The Obama administration inherited from President Bush a multiyear, $100 million secret American program to help Pakistan build stronger physical protections around some of those facilities, and to train Pakistanis in nuclear security.

    But much of that effort has now petered out, and American officials have never been permitted to see how much of the money was spent, the facilities where the weapons are kept or even a tally of how many Pakistan has produced”
     
  6. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    21,921
    Likes Received:
    9,248
    Pakistan’s British-Drawn Borders

    Pakistan’s British-Drawn Borders - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com
    May 5, 2009, 10:02 AM
    Pakistan’s British-Drawn Borders
    By ROBERT MACKEY

    [​IMG]

    A map of the border between Afghanistan (in yellow) and British India (in pink) from 1893, the year the Durand Line was drawn. The Swat Valley was then considered a part of Afghanistan.
    In their fascinating account of a series of interviews with a Taliban tactician in Tuesday’s New York Times, Jane Perlez and Pir Zubair Shah point to “one distinct Taliban advantage: the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan barely exists for the Taliban.”

    In previous posts on The Lede, we’ve mentioned that Pakistan and the rest of the world believes that Afghanistan ends (and Pakistan begins) more or less where a 1,600-mile line was drawn on the world map in 1893, at the direction of a British colonial officer named Henry Mortimer Durand, who sought to define the outer edge of what was then British India. At the time, the Afghans grudgingly accepted this map, despite the fact that what became known as the Durand Line cut right through Pashtun tribal areas and even villages that they considered part of Afghanistan.

    Sir Henry, whose portrait can be seen in Britain’s National Portrait Gallery in London, drew his line with the memory of Britain’s two failed wars against the Afghans fresh in his mind. Not long before, in 1879, during what the British call the Second Anglo-Afghan War, Sir Henry had completed and published an account of “The First Afghan War and Its Causes” begun by his father, Sir Henry Marion Durand. As Sir Henry noted in his introduction to the book (which has been scanned and posted online in its entirety by Google), his father, who died before he could complete the history, “had some special qualifications for the task,” having participated in that first, disastrous attempt to subdue Afghanistan, four decades earlier.

    So, as the entry on Pakistan in the Encarta encyclopedia explains, splitting the Pashtun tribes was in some sense the whole point of what is still known today as the Durand Line:

    As the British sought to expand their empire into the northwest frontier, they clashed with the Pashtun tribes that held lands extending from the western boundary of the Punjab plains into the kingdom of Afghanistan. The Pashtuns strongly resisted British invasions into their territories. After suffering many casualties, the British finally admitted they could not conquer the Pashtuns. In 1893 Sir Mortimer Durand, the foreign secretary of the colonial government of India, negotiated an agreement with the king of Afghanistan, Amir Abdur Rahman Khan, to delineate a border. The so-called Durand Line cut through Pashtun territories, dividing them between British and Afghan areas of influence. However, the Pashtuns refused to be subjugated under British colonial rule. The British compromised by creating a new province in 1901, named the North-West Frontier Province, as a loosely administered territory where the Pashtuns would not be subject to colonial laws.
    In November, 2001, as the United States confronted the Taliban in the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Cener and the Pentagon, Vartan Gregorian explained on The Times’s Op-Ed page how the arbitrary line the British colonial administration in India drew through “Pashtunistan” in the 19th century, which still forms much of the modern border, created problems that have still not been resolved in this volatile border region.

    As the scholar Barnett Rubin noted in an article in Foreign Affairs in 2007, when the British left India in 1947 and the northwest part of the territory was carved into the new state of Pakistan, the Afghans stopped recognizing the Durand Line as a border:

    Afghanistan claimed that Pakistan was a new state, not a successor to British India, and that all past border treaties had lapsed. A loya jirga in Kabul denied that the Durand Line was an international border and called for self-determination of the tribal territories as Pashtunistan. Skirmishes across the Durand Line began with the covert support of both governments.
    While the two governments today are not actually fighting a war over the location of the border, the fact that the Durand Line runs right through the traditional Pashtun lands means that Taliban fighters from Afghanistan blend easily into the local population on the Pakistani side of the frontier. Suggestions from Pakistan to stop illegal border crossings by either putting down land mines or erecting a fence have been rejected by Afghanistan’s President, Hamid Karzai, who is himself Pashtun.

    In January, Pierre Sprey, a former Pentagon official, told Bill Moyers in a discussion of American strategy for fighting militants along the Afghan-Pakistan border, calling the Pashtuns who live along both sides of the Durand Line “a tribe,” can be misleading. In an interview, Mr. Sprey said:

    It’s not a tribe. It’s a nation. This is 40 million people spread across Afghanistan and Pakistan, you know, who don’t even recognize that border. It’s their land. … There’s 40 million of them. That’s a nation, not a tribe. Within it are tribal groupings and so on. But they all speak the common language. And they all have a very similar, very rigid, in lots of ways very admirable code of honor much stronger than their adherence to Islam.
    Pakistan’s other borders were created in 1947 by another British colonial officer, Sir Cyril Radcliffe, who was made chairman of the boundary commission and given six weeks to carve a Muslim-majority state from British India. As the historian Karl Meyer wrote in his book “The Dust of Empire,” Sir Cyril “was a curious choice,” since he had never previously visited India. In a chapter called “Pakistan: Sins of Partition,” Mr. Meyer explained:

    As Radcliffe’s former private secretary, Christopher Beaumont, later remarked in an interview, the chairman had never traveled east and “was a bit flummoxed by the whole thing. It was a rather impossible assignment, really. To partition that subcontinent in six weeks was absurd.”
    Hundreds of thousands of people died in the ethnic cleansing that followed the imposition of the new border Sir Cyril drew between India and Pakistan. W.H. Auden made the absurdity of the way the border was created the subject of the poem “Partition,” published in 1966:

    Unbiased at least he was when he arrived on his mission,
    Having never set eyes on the land he was called to partition
    Between two peoples fanatically at odds,
    With their different diets and incompatible gods.
    “Time,” they had briefed him in London, “is short. It’s too late
    For mutual reconciliation or rational debate:
    The only solution now lies in separation.
    The Viceroy thinks, as you will see from his letter,
    That the less you are seen in his company the better,
    So we’ve arranged to provide you with other accommodation.
    We can give you four judges, two Moslem and two Hindu,
    To consult with, but the final decision must rest with you.”

    Shut up in a lonely mansion, with police night and day
    Patrolling the gardens to keep the assassins away,
    He got down to work, to the task of settling the fate
    Of millions. The maps at his disposal were out of date
    And the Census Returns almost certainly incorrect,
    But there was no time to check them, no time to inspect
    Contested areas. The weather was frightfully hot,
    And a bout of dysentery kept him constantly on the trot,
    But in seven weeks it was done, the frontiers decided,
    A continent for better or worse divided.

    The next day he sailed for England, where he could quickly forget
    The case, as a good lawyer must. Return he would not,
    Afraid, as he told his Club, that he might get shot.
     
  7. Pintu

    Pintu New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    12,082
    Likes Received:
    329
    US president Mr. Barak Obama commits Time and Money to Pakistani democracy

    The Times of India reports that The US president Barak Obama commits Time and Money to Pakistani Democracy.

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...oney-to-Pak-democracy/articleshow/4494057.cms

    Obama commits time and money to Pak democracy
    7 May 2009, 0845 hrs IST, Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN


    WASHINGTON: The United States on Wednesday pledged "lasting commitment" to democratic governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan and defeating
    al-Qaida and its affiliates in the region, after day-long meetings that forced a truce between the two mutually distrustful countries and prescribed new developmental paradigms for them.

    Washington also began a detoxification process to rid Pakistan of the extremism it has nurtured at home to counter its obsessive fear and hatred for India, telling the country’s leadership again and again that it did not have to dread its eastern neighbour but its own home-grown militancy.

    In intense day-long talks involving the Presidents and principals of the three countries, Pakistan was also forced subscribe to a specific plan of action, benchmarks, and auditing to earn the more than $20 billion in US and foreign aid it will get in the next decade. Through a spokesman, the Obama administration promised to ensure the aid would not go to finance Pakistan's pathological confrontation with India or terrorist groups it has supported. In return for Pakistan's compliance, Washington pledged enduring support to the country as long as its fight against extremism was genuine and unceasing.

    Most of the US-Pakistan pledges were made in private in talks between President Zardari, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, although the latter two revealed the outlines of the agreement in brief media appearances. "Within Pakistan, we must provide lasting support to democratic institutions, while helping the government confront the insurgents who are the single greatest threat to the Pakistani state," President Obama said at a White House event, flanked by Presidents Karzai and Zardari, neither of whom spoke there.

    The US president's assurance tamped down speculation, especially in Pakistan, that Washington was again starting to favour a military dispensation in Islamabad because of the ineffectiveness of the civilian government in confronting extremists.

    Secretary of state Hillary Clinton was a little more forthcoming on the day’s proceedings, saying she was ''actually quite impressed by the actions that the Pakistani government is now taking," vis-à-vis addressing its internal crisis, but cautioning ''this is a long, difficult struggle and the leadership of Pakistan, both civilian and military, really had to work on significant paradigm shifts to be able to see this threat as those of us on the outside perceived it.''

    Although that has occurred lately and there is a resolve going forward, "there are still some challenges in terms of assets and resources and approach toward dealing with not a standing army across a border (viz India) but the kind of insurgency and guerrilla warfare that is being waged against the Pakistani state," she added.

    Clinton also indicated that Washington would not be bluffed into ponying up aid without accountability, as Pakistan is demanding, observing "a lot of lip service was paid in the past that did not translate into better lives, more safety, more security, economic development for the people of Pakistan."

    Seething with resentment throughout the day at being clubbed with Afghanistan, the Pakistanis repeatedly tried to draw attention to their issues with India, but found little traction or comfort.

    The best they got was out of Clinton, who, when asked at a briefing why the administration hadn't taken greater action to help to improve relations between India and Pakistan, said "Well, everything in due time," – an indication that there will be activity on this front after the Indian election throws up a new government.

    Pakistan also agreed to expeditiously conclude a transit trade agreement with Afghanistan that will not only benefit Islamabad, but also New Delhi and Kabul. Opening up the Wagah-Khyber route will enable land-locked Afghanistan to enhance trade with New Delhi that had been spitefully blocked by Pakistan. The agreement has been discussed without resolution since 1965, but the Obama administration appears to have convinced Pakistan that it is beneficial to all sides.

    Besides trade and commerce issues, the day-long talks also involved improving agriculture in the two countries. An array of officials from several departments outside the usual ambit of security participated in the deliberations aimed at advancing new developmental paradigms for the troubled region.

    Repeatedly though, Pakistan tried to absolve itself of responsibility and spread the blame for its parlous condition even as it sought greater aid and support from US. Among President Zardari’s observations in this direction:

    * "Afghanistan, Pakistan and the United States are all victims of terror, as is indeed the entire world. Our threat is common and our responsibilities should be shared. I am here to assure you that we shall share this burden with you all."

    * "Just as the United States is making progress after seven years of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, we too will make progress over time. Democracy in Pakistan is only seven months old."

    But the strongest indication that Washington would now hold Pakistan’s feet to the fire came from state department officials and Congressional aides, who described contentious meetings at which Zardari and his aides were bluntly told of new accountability metrics. One significant presence in the talks from the US side was deputy secretary of state for management and resources Jack Lew, who has been tasked with keeping track of US tax payer dollars and how and where it is being spent.

    "The taxpayers deserve to know that their money is being spent wisely and on things that they expect it to be spent on. And so that will be a very high priority for the administration, to make sure that those resources are spent wisely, that they’re effectively used," state department spokesman Robert Wood said.

    Wood repeated several times that the Obama administration had made it very clear to the delegation that "the existential threat to Pakistan comes from the Taliban, not India. And I think you’re seeing a number of elements within the Pakistani government, society and the military (inaudible) realize that."

    However, nothing that the Pakistani delegation said publicly during the day conveyed that impression.
     
  8. Pintu

    Pintu New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    12,082
    Likes Received:
    329
    This is the link of a report from Hindu on possible US help improve ties between India and Pakistan in future.

    http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200905070915.htm



    This is a disgusting in my opinion, we should not allow Obama Administration to play as mediator in the bilateral issues between us and Pakistan.

    Regards
     
  9. A.V.

    A.V. New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    6,503
    Likes Received:
    1,117
    Location:
    Moscow, russia
    After giving millions in AID US proposes to roll back pakistani nuke program.

    WASHINGTON: An influential US lawmaker who co-authored the so-called Nunn-Lugar Act to roll back the nuclear weapons program of former Soviet

    Republics has asked that it be applied to Pakistan too amid unremitting concern in Washington over the security of the country's nuclear arsenal.

    In a move that could spell the first formal US intervention in Pakistan's nuclear program, Republican Senator Richard Lugar on Thursday urged the Obama administration to "vigorously seek to expand our cooperation with Pakistan" under the Nunn-Lugar program, as US lawmakers and opinion leaders remained unconvinced by assurances by the country President Asif Ali Zardari that the nuclear arsenal will not fall into the hands of extremists.

    In fact, Lugar went a step further, and invoking the recent Swine flu epidemic, recommended that cooperation with Pakistan under the program also include its biological weapons.

    "In recent weeks the world has been gripped by the spread of the H1N1 virus. Imagine if the spread were intentional, not natural, and the virus's lethality had been artificially enhanced. Pakistan has many dangerous diseases and pathogens under its control. The Nunn-Lugar program can help secure the pathogen strains to ensure they do not fall into the wrong hands," Lugar said in a statement.

    The Indiana Republican said the US must be "creative and dynamic" in its efforts to "help Islamabad safeguard weapons, materials and delivery systems that could pose a threat to the American people." The first step, he maintained, must be strong leadership by President Obama "to win President Zardari's political commitment, and that of General Kayani, head of Pakistan's military, to get Nunn-Lugar fully engaged in Pakistan sooner rather than later."

    Lugar's remarks came despite strenuous efforts by the visiting Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to convince US lawmakers, the administration, the think tanks and the media of the safety and security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in the face of galloping Talibanisation of the country. Zardari told reporters after meeting with members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday that "all of the responsible authorities" in and out of Pakistan "are availed of the situation" and he had "attested to the fact that our nuclear capability is in safe hands."

    But Lugar, who was present at the meeting, declined to endorse Zardari's assurance and instead pressed the White House to act under the provisions of the Nunn-Lugar Act. The Obama administration itself has been ambivalent about the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, sometimes publicly buying into Islamabad's assurances, but privately expressing concern through officials.

    Lugar's demand carries immense weight because he is also co-author (with Democrat John Kerry) of the Senate bill that is facilitating the $ 7.5 billion US aid over five years to Pakistan. If he is serious about applying Nunn-Lugar to Pakistan, he could use the aid carrot and stick to ensure that.

    Initiated in 1991, the Nunn-Lugar Act established the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to provide US funding and expertise in assisting safeguarding and dismantling nuclear, chemical and biological weapons stockpiles. It has deactivated more than 7,500 nuclear warheads, 2,000 missiles, and over 1,100 missile launchers in the former Soviet Republics of Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    The program, as originally envisaged, was restricted to the former Soviet Union, but in 2003 Lugar wrote legislation to expand its scope. "This authority can and should be used to expand significantly our cooperation with Pakistan in the nuclear arena as well as in other critical areas," Lugar said on Thursday.

    US lawmaker seeks cap, roll-back of Pak WMDs - US - World - The Times of India
     
  10. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,291
    Likes Received:
    11,485
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Taliban vows to 'eliminate' Pakistan's top leadership

    ISLAMABAD: Angered by Pakistan government's decision to launch an all out war against them, the Taliban has vowed to "eliminate" country's top leadership including President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and their close family members.

    "We thought that being a member of a religious family, Gilani will support our demand of implementing Sharia in the Malakand division but instead he has announced an all-out war against us, which has angered our commanders as well as fighters," an unnamed Taliban commander told The News daily.

    The militant commander, who spoke to the newspaper by phone, said after Gilani declared during an address to the nation on Thursday that the Taliban would be wiped out from the Swat Valley and adjoining areas, the militants had started planning to "eliminate the top leaders of the ruling alliance, including President, Prime Minister and their close family members and aides".

    The commander said Gilani's hometown of Multan and tomb of former premier Benazir Bhutto might also be targeted by the militants.

    "Besides, the personnel and installations of security forces, we have now also included civilian rulers in our hit list. We will definitely need some time to plan our actions but it is not impossible for us and we have all the means to implement our plan of attack anywhere in Pakistan," he claimed.
     
  11. Daredevil

    Daredevil On Vacation! Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    11,613
    Likes Received:
    5,692
    No talks unless Pakistan acts against Mumbai plotters: Indian PM

    No talks unless Pakistan acts against Mumbai plotters: Indian PM

    CHENNAI, India (AFP) — Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said Saturday the peace process with neighbouring Pakistan would remain on hold unless it prosecuted those behind last year's attacks on Mumbai.
    Pakistan and India began a slow-moving peace process in February 2004 but it came to a halt after New Delhi blamed the November attacks, in which 166 people were killed, on the Pakistan-based militant organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).

    New Delhi has said it has "overwhelming evidence" that "official agencies" in Pakistan were involved in plotting and carrying out the attacks, an apparent reference to such Pakistani institutions as its spy agency and army.
    "Our minimum demand is that Pakistan must take effective steps to bring the culprits of the Mumbai attack to book before we can resume the talks," Singh told reporters in the southern city of Chennai, where he was campaigning in India's general elections.

    India has in the past accused Pakistan of not doing enough to dismantle training camps and infrastructure on its soil allegedly used for launching attacks across their common border.

    Singh also said the threat of extremism in Pakistan, whose military has launched a full-scale offensive against Taliban militants in the northwest of the country, was of concern to the entire region.

    "We wish Pakistan well in its fight against the Taliban, not only in the interest of Pakistan, but also in the interest of South Asia," he said.
    On Wednesday a Pakistani citizen who is alleged to be the only gunman to survive the three-day killing spree in Mumbai pleaded not guilty to all charges, including "waging war against India," which carries the death penalty.

    Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, 21, is also charged with destabilising the government, murder, kidnap and robbery, as part of the 10-member Islamist militant commando group that stormed India's financial and entertainment capital.

    Indian prosecutors say they have evidence that "undoubtedly and conclusively" links the attacks to Pakistan, including mobile and satellite phone communication between the gunmen and their LeT "handlers."

    AFP: No talks unless Pakistan acts against Mumbai plotters: Indian PM

    --------------------

    We have been giving rope to Pakistan despite terrorist attacks for too long. Its time to be firm on the statement that no talks on Kashmir unless Mumbai attack culprits are punished.
     
  12. johnee

    johnee Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,474
    Likes Received:
    474
    Are we Deceiving Ourselves Again?

    Read Arun Shourie's latest book to know the full magnitude of Nehru's China delusion and how he kept insulting, humiliating and over-ruling bureacrats and military officers who were much more intelligent and far-sighted than him. He was mostly an imbecile who got lucky due to an equally blind but popular God father.

    Are we Deceiving Ourselves Again?
    Lessons the Chinese Taught Pandit Nehru but which we Still Refuse to Learn
    By Arun Shourie

    [​IMG]
    Unlearnt Chinese lessons - Book Reviews - Phayul.com

    Nehru seemed autocratic in many issues and foreign policy and military matters were two of them. He didn't want to listen to saner counsel. My take is that he feared majoritarian community's view might prevail, something he jealously guarded against. In 1948, when Indian troops were about to drive away all the Pakistanis, Nehru ordered ceasefire. The 1947-48 operation by the IA was one of the most challenging ever and the IA rose to the occasion and even went beyond. It was Nehru who was procrastinating even on Oct. 26, 1947 when VP Menon and Col. Manekshaw returned from Srinagar with Maharajah Hari Singh's signed accession paper. An exasperated Patel asked Nehru bluntly "Do you want J&K or not" and even without waiting for an answer from Nehru turned back to Col. Manekshaw and told him to send in the troops. If Patel had waited for Nehru's answer, there is every possibility he would have still procrastinated and even with the tribesmen being dustracted by the raping and looting at Baramulla, the Pakistanis would have grabbed the entire State.


    JOHNEE FOR THE NTH TIME THE SLUR PAK* IS NOT ALLOWED ON THIS BOARD
     
  13. Rage

    Rage DFI TEAM Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,418
    Likes Received:
    977
    Pakistan challenges ICC over loss of World Cup

    Sat May 9, 2009 7:00pm IST

    [​IMG]
    Ejaz Butt, chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board, speaks during
    a news conference in Lahore in this March 5, 2009 file photo.
    REUTERS/Mohsin Raza/Files



    KARACHI (Reuters) - Pakistan's cricket authorities have mounted a legal challenge to the International Cricket Council's (ICC) decision to strip the country of the right to host 2011 World Cup matches.

    "The ICC didn't consult us before taking this decision. We have sent them a legal notice," Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) chairman Ejaz Butt told a news conference in Lahore on Saturday.

    "We don't think the ICC decision is sound on legal grounds. If they say the security situation in Pakistan prompted this decision then the security situation in India and Sri Lanka is also not good," Butt said.

    He said the board would try to get a restraining order against the ICC, who announced last month that they were moving the matches because of the "uncertain security situation" in Pakistan.

    The matches have been redistributed among the other three host nations, India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

    In a statement, the PCB said: "We are most concerned about the manner in which the ICC took this decision.

    "There was no notice prior to the meeting that a decision of this nature would be taken. There was no proper security assessment of Pakistan nor of the other co-hosts of the 2011 Tournament. We believe that more could and should have been done to review the actual situation to deal with the matter on a non-discriminatory basis."

    The ICC decision came after gunmen attacked the Sri Lankan cricket team bus on March 3 in Lahore, wounding six players and their assistant coach. Six policemen and a van driver were killed.


    Pakistan challenges ICC over loss of World Cup | Top News | Reuters
     
  14. Daredevil

    Daredevil On Vacation! Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    11,613
    Likes Received:
    5,692
    That is their main problem. They want to bring down India and others down along with them, now that they are kicked out of the world-cup hosting. Well, they are digging their own grave by going against ICC and Indian sub-continent WC hosts. Losers!!!.
     
  15. EnlightenedMonk

    EnlightenedMonk Member of The Month JULY 2009 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,831
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ought to be an interesting read... will get my hands on it as soon as I get the time... and the money...

    Funding anyone ??? :D:D:D:D:D
     
  16. nitesh

    nitesh Mob Control Manager Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    7,550
    Likes Received:
    1,278
    Location:
    Bangalore
    This guy is definitely pointing towards terrorist attacks, at least I can't think of anything else. All Pakistanis are one when it comes to terrorism, why don't they just get out of ICC seriously no body will miss them

    ICC, BCCI should not treat PCB like beggars: Butt

     
  17. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,291
    Likes Received:
    11,485
    Location:
    BANGalore
    There is nothing wrong with the security situation in India and now even SL is done with its problems. But yes, Pakistan will definitely try to create tensions in India by way of terror attacks so that even India does not get to organize the tournament.
     
  18. nitesh

    nitesh Mob Control Manager Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    7,550
    Likes Received:
    1,278
    Location:
    Bangalore
    How much more ridiculous it can become, isn't the driver was boasting about his brother died in Kashmir, this is shameless:

    ICC announces Champions Trophy schedule

     
  19. Daredevil

    Daredevil On Vacation! Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    11,613
    Likes Received:
    5,692
    Niteshji, IMO, ICC is throwing some bread crumbs to the stray dog to keep it calm for a while, nothing less nothing more.
     
  20. F-14

    F-14 Global Defence Moderator Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,563
    Likes Received:
    23


    isnt the PCB alrady a begger :mornin:
     

Share This Page