- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 3,831
- Likes
- 28
Add Mahesh Bhatt the film-maker to that list too...
Pakistan political discussions
- Thread starter A.V.
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 3,831
- Likes
- 28
Unfortunately Johnee, I fear it IS too late... when the Army seems to have lost the will to fight, what are the general public going to do ???
We just have to fortify our borders and get ready to stave off the ragged misguided warriors who think they're fighting for Islam, but only end up fighting for the petty interests of some Mullah...
We just have to fortify our borders and get ready to stave off the ragged misguided warriors who think they're fighting for Islam, but only end up fighting for the petty interests of some Mullah...
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 7,550
- Likes
- 1,309
This is a very significant statement coming direct;y from top power echelons but as EM and you are saying even I tend to agree that it is already too late to convince the general public about this.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 7,550
- Likes
- 1,309
EM isn't we are doing the same thing from 1947?
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 3,831
- Likes
- 28
Yes we are... but I suspect this time it will be bloodier and a more costly affair with more volumes of infiltration both in quantity and quality...
We have our job cut out for us...
We have our job cut out for us...
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 3,831
- Likes
- 28
Yes we are... but I suspect this time it will be bloodier and a more costly affair with more volumes of infiltration both in quantity and quality...
We have our job cut out for us...
We have our job cut out for us...
johnee
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
- Messages
- 3,473
- Likes
- 500
IMO, whether pakistan is ruled by taliban or PA makes no difference to india except one dimension: nukes. I pressume that the nuclear threshold of PA(or democratic govt guided by it) is a notch higher than that of talibunnies.
so, in india's interest de-nuclearise pak, then let them do whatever they want with their beloved nation.
so, in india's interest de-nuclearise pak, then let them do whatever they want with their beloved nation.
johnee
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
- Messages
- 3,473
- Likes
- 500
IMO, whether pakistan is ruled by taliban or PA makes no difference to india except one dimension: nukes. I pressume that the nuclear threshold of PA(or democratic govt guided by it) is a notch higher than that of talibunnies.
so, in india's interest de-nuclearise pak, then let them do whatever they want with their beloved nation.
so, in india's interest de-nuclearise pak, then let them do whatever they want with their beloved nation.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 7,550
- Likes
- 1,309
at the same time they will not have any msk to hide behind like democracy or anything so we will be having more freedom to tackle them
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 3,831
- Likes
- 28
But the question is whether we HAVE to POLITICAL WILL to tackle them ??? I'm sure all our pseudo-secularists will object...
And, even after the 26/11 attack when the time was ripe to set Pakistan right, we wiled away the opportunity due to our lack of POLITICAL WILL...
And, even after the 26/11 attack when the time was ripe to set Pakistan right, we wiled away the opportunity due to our lack of POLITICAL WILL...
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 3,831
- Likes
- 28
But the question is whether we HAVE to POLITICAL WILL to tackle them ??? I'm sure all our pseudo-secularists will object...
And, even after the 26/11 attack when the time was ripe to set Pakistan right, we wiled away the opportunity due to our lack of POLITICAL WILL...
And, even after the 26/11 attack when the time was ripe to set Pakistan right, we wiled away the opportunity due to our lack of POLITICAL WILL...
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 7,550
- Likes
- 1,309
once the taliban takes over which is a declared terrorist organization then we need to worry too much about diplomacy isn't it?
No, then we worry about which cities of ours are gonna be nuked!
A stitch in time saves nine. If we wait too long, we might find ourselves unable to do anything to prevent pak nukes falling into taliban hands. It'll only happen if taliban manage to influence the top brass of the pak military. But all the same, we should have a contingency plan to tackle that problem should it happn. I think we should work with USA and Israel on this.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2009
- Messages
- 11,615
- Likes
- 5,773
‘Pakistan should worry about terrorism, not India’
* US Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman says tensions with India over Kashmir are diverting Pakistan from fight against extremism
* US Senate’s Homeland Security chairman says it’s difficult to convince Pakistani establishment of extremism being the
real threat
Daily Times Monitor
LAHORE: The greatest threat Pakistan faces today comes from terrorism, not India, two US leaders have said.
Speaking at Harvard University, General David Petraeus of the Central Command on Monday said the government in Islamabad needed a change in its mindset towards its neighbour similar to what happened in the US after the Cold War.
“The existential threat facing Pakistan,” he said, “is internal extremists and not India.”
Diversion: Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last month that tensions with India over Kashmir were diverting Pakistan from the fight against extremism.
India realises the “desirability of reducing tensions” so Pakistan can focus its efforts on combating terrorists, Petraeus told reporters. But the five-year peace process between the neighbours has been stalled since the November attacks in Mumbai. India blamed the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Tayyaba for the assault, which Petraeus called “a true 9/11 moment” for India.
Many in Pakistan’s government recognise that extremist elements pose a threat to its authority and must be brought under control, Petraeus said.
According to government estimates, terrorism has cost Pakistan $35 billion in economic losses and damage to infrastructure. More than 3,500 terrorist incidents have occurred since 2007, killing an average of 84 people per month this year.
Separately, Senator Joseph Lieberman told the Council on Foreign Relations, an American think-tank, “Pakistanis have to understand that their major enemy in the region is no longer India, but it’s extremism. In fact, they have a common enemy in that with the Indians.”
Difficulty: Lieberman, chairman of the US Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, admitted, however, that it was difficult to convince the Pakistani establishment. “That’s a tough sell,” he said.
Responding to questions, Senator Lieberman reiterated his view that any new aid to Pakistan needs to be conditional.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
* US Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman says tensions with India over Kashmir are diverting Pakistan from fight against extremism
* US Senate’s Homeland Security chairman says it’s difficult to convince Pakistani establishment of extremism being the
real threat
Daily Times Monitor
LAHORE: The greatest threat Pakistan faces today comes from terrorism, not India, two US leaders have said.
Speaking at Harvard University, General David Petraeus of the Central Command on Monday said the government in Islamabad needed a change in its mindset towards its neighbour similar to what happened in the US after the Cold War.
“The existential threat facing Pakistan,” he said, “is internal extremists and not India.”
Diversion: Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last month that tensions with India over Kashmir were diverting Pakistan from the fight against extremism.
India realises the “desirability of reducing tensions” so Pakistan can focus its efforts on combating terrorists, Petraeus told reporters. But the five-year peace process between the neighbours has been stalled since the November attacks in Mumbai. India blamed the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Tayyaba for the assault, which Petraeus called “a true 9/11 moment” for India.
Many in Pakistan’s government recognise that extremist elements pose a threat to its authority and must be brought under control, Petraeus said.
According to government estimates, terrorism has cost Pakistan $35 billion in economic losses and damage to infrastructure. More than 3,500 terrorist incidents have occurred since 2007, killing an average of 84 people per month this year.
Separately, Senator Joseph Lieberman told the Council on Foreign Relations, an American think-tank, “Pakistanis have to understand that their major enemy in the region is no longer India, but it’s extremism. In fact, they have a common enemy in that with the Indians.”
Difficulty: Lieberman, chairman of the US Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, admitted, however, that it was difficult to convince the Pakistani establishment. “That’s a tough sell,” he said.
Responding to questions, Senator Lieberman reiterated his view that any new aid to Pakistan needs to be conditional.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2009
- Messages
- 11,615
- Likes
- 5,773
‘Pakistan should worry about terrorism, not India’
* US Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman says tensions with India over Kashmir are diverting Pakistan from fight against extremism
* US Senate’s Homeland Security chairman says it’s difficult to convince Pakistani establishment of extremism being the
real threat
Daily Times Monitor
LAHORE: The greatest threat Pakistan faces today comes from terrorism, not India, two US leaders have said.
Speaking at Harvard University, General David Petraeus of the Central Command on Monday said the government in Islamabad needed a change in its mindset towards its neighbour similar to what happened in the US after the Cold War.
“The existential threat facing Pakistan,” he said, “is internal extremists and not India.”
Diversion: Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last month that tensions with India over Kashmir were diverting Pakistan from the fight against extremism.
India realises the “desirability of reducing tensions” so Pakistan can focus its efforts on combating terrorists, Petraeus told reporters. But the five-year peace process between the neighbours has been stalled since the November attacks in Mumbai. India blamed the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Tayyaba for the assault, which Petraeus called “a true 9/11 moment” for India.
Many in Pakistan’s government recognise that extremist elements pose a threat to its authority and must be brought under control, Petraeus said.
According to government estimates, terrorism has cost Pakistan $35 billion in economic losses and damage to infrastructure. More than 3,500 terrorist incidents have occurred since 2007, killing an average of 84 people per month this year.
Separately, Senator Joseph Lieberman told the Council on Foreign Relations, an American think-tank, “Pakistanis have to understand that their major enemy in the region is no longer India, but it’s extremism. In fact, they have a common enemy in that with the Indians.”
Difficulty: Lieberman, chairman of the US Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, admitted, however, that it was difficult to convince the Pakistani establishment. “That’s a tough sell,” he said.
Responding to questions, Senator Lieberman reiterated his view that any new aid to Pakistan needs to be conditional.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
* US Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman says tensions with India over Kashmir are diverting Pakistan from fight against extremism
* US Senate’s Homeland Security chairman says it’s difficult to convince Pakistani establishment of extremism being the
real threat
Daily Times Monitor
LAHORE: The greatest threat Pakistan faces today comes from terrorism, not India, two US leaders have said.
Speaking at Harvard University, General David Petraeus of the Central Command on Monday said the government in Islamabad needed a change in its mindset towards its neighbour similar to what happened in the US after the Cold War.
“The existential threat facing Pakistan,” he said, “is internal extremists and not India.”
Diversion: Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last month that tensions with India over Kashmir were diverting Pakistan from the fight against extremism.
India realises the “desirability of reducing tensions” so Pakistan can focus its efforts on combating terrorists, Petraeus told reporters. But the five-year peace process between the neighbours has been stalled since the November attacks in Mumbai. India blamed the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Tayyaba for the assault, which Petraeus called “a true 9/11 moment” for India.
Many in Pakistan’s government recognise that extremist elements pose a threat to its authority and must be brought under control, Petraeus said.
According to government estimates, terrorism has cost Pakistan $35 billion in economic losses and damage to infrastructure. More than 3,500 terrorist incidents have occurred since 2007, killing an average of 84 people per month this year.
Separately, Senator Joseph Lieberman told the Council on Foreign Relations, an American think-tank, “Pakistanis have to understand that their major enemy in the region is no longer India, but it’s extremism. In fact, they have a common enemy in that with the Indians.”
Difficulty: Lieberman, chairman of the US Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, admitted, however, that it was difficult to convince the Pakistani establishment. “That’s a tough sell,” he said.
Responding to questions, Senator Lieberman reiterated his view that any new aid to Pakistan needs to be conditional.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 7,550
- Likes
- 1,309
U really think that world is going to watch the taliban takeover nukes? Please don't be so naive.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 7,550
- Likes
- 1,309
Enemies to the east?
Enemies to the east?
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Kamila Hyat
The writer is a freelance columnist and former newspaper editor
Two stuffed camels, as tall and as dour as the actual beasts, stand these days along the Lahore canal. Atop them ride two figures – dressed from head-to-toe in stark white robes and obviously meant to represent desert Arabs. The camels seem oddly out of place amidst the colourful floats and other, sometimes garish, displays of dancers and peacocks and boats and horses meant to mark the city's Spring Festival. One asks how they came to stand there or what role they have amongst the 'dhol' carrying figures from a Punjabi village or the colourfully dressed women who churn their pots of 'lassi'.
But the presence of the Arabs represents something of the confusion that has overtaken us. Since the 1980s, a forceful attempt has been made to turn heads to the west, to place Pakistan in the Muslim Middle East and to have it abandon its place amidst the more diverse whole of South Asia. It is this thinking of course that has led to the absurd -- but widely held notion that the history of Pakistan begins with the landing in Sindh of Muhammad Bin Qasim in 711 A.D. Today, the mindset that inspired this twist on history seems active again. There is talk of India, rather than the Taliban, being the 'real' enemy.
This view is echoed frequently in the media. This of course is no big surprise given that the media has, indeed, traditionally leaned largely to the right. But more alarming is the fact that within Pakistan's military there is a clear opinion that while the civilian government may see militants as the enemies, the real foe is India. An effort to persuade at least selected politicians of this, and thus create a divide in the setup, is now on. To make this process still more effective, the whole war being fought in Pakistan is depicted as one between the US and the Taliban.
The fact that over 300 Pakistani civilians have died this year in suicide bombings carried out by the militants is cleverly ignored. And attempts have been made – some media insiders believe almost certainly orchestrated by intelligence agencies – to discredit video footage of the flogging of a girl in Swat by painting it as a NGO conspiracy. No rational, no logic has been put forward as to the hows and whys of this.
The entire chain of reasoning that holds the war against the militants is the USA's rather than ours, and that it is India whom we should be fighting, must be challenged. Our politicians need to come out unequivocally to question this flawed line of thought. Whereas it is true that much of the militancy we confront today is a consequence of US policies and the continued presence of that country's troops in Afghanistan, we must keep in mind that the situation is not that of 'either the US or the Taliban'. It is possible to have two enemies; it is sensible in such a situation to decide how strategically to take them both on, possibly one at a time. But simply because there is so much to oppose as far as Washington goes does not mean we should place ourselves in the camp of the blood-thirsty militants who think nothing of gunning down people and then impaling their heads upon poles.
So far, even if reluctantly, the military has been following political orders to take on the militants. It has not had much success. This embarrassment seems to be one factor in its decision that it may be better to join an enemy one cannot beat. Faced with a military that it believes is not fully under its command, the political setup too has shown signs of wavering. In parliament last week, with one honourable exception, no one seemed willing to question the peace deal in Swat. This included the 'liberals' and the women in the National Assembly. Perhaps the fear of Taliban bullets was a factor in their silence; perhaps it was an obligation to toe the line of their parties. But whatever the reasons our politicians showed themselves both unwilling and incapable of defending the right of people who live under the ruthless rule of the Taliban.
There is another problem. While there are politicians who have no sympathy with the Taliban, they ask how this force is to be battled without the full support of the military. There are no easy answers. But a start has to be made somewhere. One place to do so is by encouraging people to gaze once more to the east and to re-establish Pakistan as a South Asian nation, an inheritor of its unique blend of cultures, rather than as a country that equates itself only with that portion of the past that belongs to Islam.
To do this, the fallacy that we can militarily take on India – perhaps because we have nuclear weapons – must be exposed as nothing more than a lie. An army that has been unable to tame a few thousand maverick militants can hardly be expected to take on a far larger and more organized army. There are also other hard realities that must be confronted. Much as we may wish to deny it, much as stories of Indian 'failure' are lapped up by our media, the real, unquestionable fact is that that country has succeeded.
Its 1.2 billion people, despite a slowdown that has crippled many segments of the Indian economy, look to the future with hope. Pakistan's 160 million see less and less light to brighten the darkness that swirls all around and threatens to overwhelm them. Think tanks hold India will, by 2020, rank as a world super power. They ask if Pakistan can till then even hold together as a cohesive state. Some Pentagon analysts have envisaged a situation where it breaks up into separate fiefdoms, controlled by Taliban warlords. This is not impossible to envisage given that control of Swat has already been handed over to Maulana Fazalullah and Sufi Mohammad Khan.
Some of the scenarios being drawn up may be far-fetched. Many drafts for the future drawn up by American or European think tanks have of course proved inaccurate. Among these was the notion that Pakistan would evolve into a stable, developed country.
This has not happened. The country's president has warned the world that terrorists based in Pakistan threaten everyone. He has not said how this threat is to be tackled. But answers have to be found. The only option for Pakistan is to break free of the militant grip, focus on building a new relationship with India and realize the only hope for a brighter future lies in building regional harmony rather than in waging war.
Email: [email protected]
Enemies to the east?
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Kamila Hyat
The writer is a freelance columnist and former newspaper editor
Two stuffed camels, as tall and as dour as the actual beasts, stand these days along the Lahore canal. Atop them ride two figures – dressed from head-to-toe in stark white robes and obviously meant to represent desert Arabs. The camels seem oddly out of place amidst the colourful floats and other, sometimes garish, displays of dancers and peacocks and boats and horses meant to mark the city's Spring Festival. One asks how they came to stand there or what role they have amongst the 'dhol' carrying figures from a Punjabi village or the colourfully dressed women who churn their pots of 'lassi'.
But the presence of the Arabs represents something of the confusion that has overtaken us. Since the 1980s, a forceful attempt has been made to turn heads to the west, to place Pakistan in the Muslim Middle East and to have it abandon its place amidst the more diverse whole of South Asia. It is this thinking of course that has led to the absurd -- but widely held notion that the history of Pakistan begins with the landing in Sindh of Muhammad Bin Qasim in 711 A.D. Today, the mindset that inspired this twist on history seems active again. There is talk of India, rather than the Taliban, being the 'real' enemy.
This view is echoed frequently in the media. This of course is no big surprise given that the media has, indeed, traditionally leaned largely to the right. But more alarming is the fact that within Pakistan's military there is a clear opinion that while the civilian government may see militants as the enemies, the real foe is India. An effort to persuade at least selected politicians of this, and thus create a divide in the setup, is now on. To make this process still more effective, the whole war being fought in Pakistan is depicted as one between the US and the Taliban.
The fact that over 300 Pakistani civilians have died this year in suicide bombings carried out by the militants is cleverly ignored. And attempts have been made – some media insiders believe almost certainly orchestrated by intelligence agencies – to discredit video footage of the flogging of a girl in Swat by painting it as a NGO conspiracy. No rational, no logic has been put forward as to the hows and whys of this.
The entire chain of reasoning that holds the war against the militants is the USA's rather than ours, and that it is India whom we should be fighting, must be challenged. Our politicians need to come out unequivocally to question this flawed line of thought. Whereas it is true that much of the militancy we confront today is a consequence of US policies and the continued presence of that country's troops in Afghanistan, we must keep in mind that the situation is not that of 'either the US or the Taliban'. It is possible to have two enemies; it is sensible in such a situation to decide how strategically to take them both on, possibly one at a time. But simply because there is so much to oppose as far as Washington goes does not mean we should place ourselves in the camp of the blood-thirsty militants who think nothing of gunning down people and then impaling their heads upon poles.
So far, even if reluctantly, the military has been following political orders to take on the militants. It has not had much success. This embarrassment seems to be one factor in its decision that it may be better to join an enemy one cannot beat. Faced with a military that it believes is not fully under its command, the political setup too has shown signs of wavering. In parliament last week, with one honourable exception, no one seemed willing to question the peace deal in Swat. This included the 'liberals' and the women in the National Assembly. Perhaps the fear of Taliban bullets was a factor in their silence; perhaps it was an obligation to toe the line of their parties. But whatever the reasons our politicians showed themselves both unwilling and incapable of defending the right of people who live under the ruthless rule of the Taliban.
There is another problem. While there are politicians who have no sympathy with the Taliban, they ask how this force is to be battled without the full support of the military. There are no easy answers. But a start has to be made somewhere. One place to do so is by encouraging people to gaze once more to the east and to re-establish Pakistan as a South Asian nation, an inheritor of its unique blend of cultures, rather than as a country that equates itself only with that portion of the past that belongs to Islam.
To do this, the fallacy that we can militarily take on India – perhaps because we have nuclear weapons – must be exposed as nothing more than a lie. An army that has been unable to tame a few thousand maverick militants can hardly be expected to take on a far larger and more organized army. There are also other hard realities that must be confronted. Much as we may wish to deny it, much as stories of Indian 'failure' are lapped up by our media, the real, unquestionable fact is that that country has succeeded.
Its 1.2 billion people, despite a slowdown that has crippled many segments of the Indian economy, look to the future with hope. Pakistan's 160 million see less and less light to brighten the darkness that swirls all around and threatens to overwhelm them. Think tanks hold India will, by 2020, rank as a world super power. They ask if Pakistan can till then even hold together as a cohesive state. Some Pentagon analysts have envisaged a situation where it breaks up into separate fiefdoms, controlled by Taliban warlords. This is not impossible to envisage given that control of Swat has already been handed over to Maulana Fazalullah and Sufi Mohammad Khan.
Some of the scenarios being drawn up may be far-fetched. Many drafts for the future drawn up by American or European think tanks have of course proved inaccurate. Among these was the notion that Pakistan would evolve into a stable, developed country.
This has not happened. The country's president has warned the world that terrorists based in Pakistan threaten everyone. He has not said how this threat is to be tackled. But answers have to be found. The only option for Pakistan is to break free of the militant grip, focus on building a new relationship with India and realize the only hope for a brighter future lies in building regional harmony rather than in waging war.
Email: [email protected]
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 7,550
- Likes
- 1,309
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2009
- Messages
- 11,615
- Likes
- 5,773
Ex-PAF chief accuses Musharraf of 'kickbacks' in jet deal
Rezaul H Laskar.
Islamabad, Apr 23 (PTI) Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has been accused by a former air force chief of"ruining"a USD 1.2 billion deal for acquiring surveillance aircraft from Sweden's Saab firm for"possible kickbacks".
Former Air Chief Marshal Saadat Kaleem has claimed that despite the Pakistan Air Force's opposition, Musharraf put pressure on the force to modify a contract to reduce the number of surveillance aircraft to be purchased from Saab from six to four and to include two Chinese systems.
The contract originally envisaged the purchase of six Saab airborne warning and surveillance systems and a Saab 2000 aircraft for VIP flights. He told'The News'that Musharraf"personally exerted pressure on him"to modify the contract.
Kaleem said he was opposed to this because of objections raised by PAF experts on technical grounds. He said after he retired in March 2006, the contract with the Swedish firm was modified to include two Chinese systems.
"It was done with mala fide intentions,"Kaleem said, adding such modifications were usually made due to"some motivation factor".
The PAF had cautioned that the Chinese system was inferior to the Swedish one and that the two systems were incompatible. One of the systems was superfluous and the mix of two different technologies is bound to create more problems instead of serving the purpose for which the project was conceived, he said.
International : Ex-PAF chief accuses Musharraf of 'kickbacks' in jet deal : 556174
---------------------------------
So, chinese AWACS must be junk then.
Rezaul H Laskar.
Islamabad, Apr 23 (PTI) Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has been accused by a former air force chief of"ruining"a USD 1.2 billion deal for acquiring surveillance aircraft from Sweden's Saab firm for"possible kickbacks".
Former Air Chief Marshal Saadat Kaleem has claimed that despite the Pakistan Air Force's opposition, Musharraf put pressure on the force to modify a contract to reduce the number of surveillance aircraft to be purchased from Saab from six to four and to include two Chinese systems.
The contract originally envisaged the purchase of six Saab airborne warning and surveillance systems and a Saab 2000 aircraft for VIP flights. He told'The News'that Musharraf"personally exerted pressure on him"to modify the contract.
Kaleem said he was opposed to this because of objections raised by PAF experts on technical grounds. He said after he retired in March 2006, the contract with the Swedish firm was modified to include two Chinese systems.
"It was done with mala fide intentions,"Kaleem said, adding such modifications were usually made due to"some motivation factor".
The PAF had cautioned that the Chinese system was inferior to the Swedish one and that the two systems were incompatible. One of the systems was superfluous and the mix of two different technologies is bound to create more problems instead of serving the purpose for which the project was conceived, he said.
International : Ex-PAF chief accuses Musharraf of 'kickbacks' in jet deal : 556174
---------------------------------
So, chinese AWACS must be junk then.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 7,550
- Likes
- 1,309
