NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: I don't see why this was necessary. I imagine that macho American official wanted to get blood revenge on as many people as possible.

Seriously it's silly. There were plenty of incentives for Musharraf to support America without threats.

---------

By Gertrude Chavez-Dreyfuss

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan said that after the September 11 attacks the United States threatened to bomb his country if it did not cooperate with America's campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Musharraf, in an interview with CBS news magazine show "60 Minutes" that will air Sunday, said the threat came from Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and was given to Musharraf's intelligence director.

"The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age,'" Musharraf said. "I think it was a very rude remark."

Armitage was not immediately available to comment, and U.S. State Department spokesman Tom Casey declined comment on the remarks by Musharraf, who is now in Washington and is due to meet President George Bush in the White House on Friday.

The Pakistani leader, whose remarks were distributed to the media by CBS, said he reacted to the threat in a responsible way. "One has to think and take actions in the interest of the nation, and that's what I did," Musharraf said.

Before the Sept 11, 2001 attacks, Pakistan was one of the only countries in the world to maintain relations with the Taliban, which was harboring al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, and many Pakistanis were sympathetic with the neighboring Islamic state.

But within days of the attacks Musharraf cut his government's ties to the Taliban regime and cooperated with U.S. efforts to track and capture Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces that sought refuge in Pakistan.

The official 9/11 Commission report on the attacks and their aftermath, based largely on government documents, said U.S. national security officials focused immediately on securing Pakistani cooperation as they planned a response.

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

Wow... this is going to make Pakistanis, within and without of Pakistan very angry.

Keep the anti-America propaganda coming

Keep the anti-America propaganda coming

Yes, reporting the comments of the leader of an ally of the US is "anti-America" propaganda.

God, you lot are getting more desperate by the day...

Sad then that he's still not helping.

If you look at the history of the Al Qaeda movement, the path leads back to Pakistan, again and again. The government did nothing while the Madrassa system there became more and more extremist and violent.

To be honest, I think the best way to act after 9/11 would have been to include the border regions within Pakistan into the combat zone. As it was, Taliban and AQ fighters (including, of course, Bin Laden et al) could simply move into Pakistan and are pretty much safe there.

Many in the Pakistani authorities (army and secret services mainly) are actually quite sympathetic to AQ's cause or at least consider them useful.

Threats or no threats, Musharraf is in no real position to do something about the extremists in his country, and the "help" needed for him to do that should have come right after the Afghanistan invasion.

I don't see what the problem is. US threated Pakistan. Pakistan complied. Our operation in Afghanistan went more smoothly. Period.

Keep the anti-America propaganda coming

Will do.

President Bush sacrifices children to Baal. There you go - as per your request.

Anybody else care to contribute?

Donald Rumsfeld kills babies and Dick Cheney eats them. That's what the War on Terror is, really; Rumsfeld feeding Cheney's baby addiction.

Yes, reporting the comments of the leader of an ally of the US is "anti-America" propaganda.

God, you lot are getting more desperate by the day...

What desperation? I'm not desperate. To be quite honest I can care less what happened 5 yrs ago. I do question why it took 5 yrs to come out when I know that they're are all types of leaks. Why now though. Maybe it took 5 yrs for them to figure out what was said or maybe they got the translation confused.

Maybe it took 5 yrs for them to figure out what was said or maybe they got the translation confused.

But like you already said, you could care less what happened five years ago. So stow it.

To be quite honest I can care less what happened 5 yrs ago.

You mean you can't, or, better still, couldn't. Why is it so many people are incapable of using proper English grammar, even when the meaning of the words they use should be obvious?

I don't see what the problem is. US threated Pakistan. Pakistan complied. Our operation in Afghanistan went more smoothly. Period.

And now Afghanistan is going to pot because Pakistan is actively undermining our efforts. Rather than enlisting their genuine support, the US coerced their compliance. So now we have an angry Pakistan to deal with as well.

You mean you can't, or, better still, couldn't. Why is it so many people are incapable of using proper English grammar, even when the meaning of the words they use should be obvious?

That actually really does annoy me.

"Could care less" means that you do care about it.

"Couldn't care less" means that you don't care about it.

You mean you can't, or, better still, couldn't. Why is it so many people are incapable of using proper English grammar, even when the meaning of the words they use should be obvious?

Last I known was that this is a forum not English/grammar class. I'm not the only who make typos or bad grammar. Your point is, what? My point is this......:upyours:

That actually really does annoy me.

"Could care less" means that you do care about it.

"Couldn't care less" means that you don't care about it.

Indeed. The meaning of the words is extremely clear. The mistake comes from people not actually thinking about the words they use.

I shouldn't of responded on my last message....didn't realize it was a Frenchie. I guess I'm just another one of those idiots from America. :D

Keep the anti-America propaganda coming
Propaganda is politically biased information. This isn't really biased.

Sad then that he's still not helping.

If you look at the history of the Al Qaeda movement, the path leads back to Pakistan, again and again. The government did nothing while the Madrassa system there became more and more extremist and violent.

To be honest, I think the best way to act after 9/11 would have been to include the border regions within Pakistan into the combat zone. As it was, Taliban and AQ fighters (including, of course, Bin Laden et al) could simply move into Pakistan and are pretty much safe there.

Many in the Pakistani authorities (army and secret services mainly) are actually quite sympathetic to AQ's cause or at least consider them useful.

Threats or no threats, Musharraf is in no real position to do something about the extremists in his country, and the "help" needed for him to do that should have come right after the Afghanistan invasion.
Pakistan is a country that interests me greatly. Musharraf wants to get rid of the Islamic radicals, especially the sectarian terrorists, but the problem is that he can't. The tax system hardly collects any revenue and the system is corrupt. He has a strong hold on the army, indeed he has kicked out many of the theocratic-leaning officers.

The ultra-fundamentalist NWFP you mention is and always has been a problem.

I shouldn't of responded on my last message....didn't realize it was a Frenchie. I guess I'm just another one of those idiots from America. :D

Well, let's face it, when someone with English as a second language can put together a phrase better than you can...

Indeed. The meaning of the words is extremely clear. The mistake comes from people not actually thinking about the words they use.

Oh, I was aware of it - it just struck me that this self-appointed "king" we're all responding to wouldn't particularly give a monkey's bunion what he actually said. He's evidently happy enough to be as unclear as a bottle of pepto-bismol.

Last I known was that this is a forum not English/grammar class. I'm not the only who make typos or bad grammar. Your point is, what? My point is this......:upyours:

"Last I known"? Wow...

I must also applaud your subtlelty, keen intellect, well thought-out argument and sens de la répartie. Truly, you impress me.

Sarcasm aside, if you have such a poor grasp of the English language, you cannot hope to express yourself in a coherent and intelligent manner (in English, at least). One who never reflects upon the meaning of the words he uses can only have shallow thoughts, for he merely parrots the words of others, and the meaning others ascribe to them.

Oh, and anyone too lazy to learn proper grammar doesn't exactly inpire respect.

Oh, I was aware of it - it just struck me that this self-appointed "king" we're all responding to wouldn't particularly give a monkey's bunion what he actually said. He's evidently happy enough to be as unclear as a bottle of pepto-bismol.

You're absolutely correct, I could care less about my imperfections. I must not be as perfect as you or anyone else for that matter.

No I am not perfect, I am human. Atleast I am man enough to admit when I'm wrong unlike some Europeans in this forum.

Did it make you feel important, when you pointed the grammar error?

What is it like to be perfect? Must be nice. Again, I would like to salute you....:upyours:

hmm, pakistan was on my short list of countries that were gonna get blasted in retaliation that september morning while i watched the news...

I shouldn't of responded on my last message....didn't realize it was a Frenchie. I guess I'm just another one of those idiots from America. :D

"shouldn't have responded". And no, my views on the United States and its complex and diverse people are not that shallow or simplistic.

No I am not perfect, I am human. Atleast I am man enough to admit when I'm wrong unlike some Europeans in this forum.

You've been around, what, two seconds? And already you feel you know this place? I've been here over two years, and I still don't know it well enough to make a statement like that.

"Last I known"? Wow...

I must also applaud your subtlelty, keen intellect, well thought-out argument and sens de la répartie. Truly, you impress me.

Sarcasm aside, if you have such a poor grasp of the English language, you cannot hope to express yourself in a coherent and intelligent manner (in English, at least). One who never reflects upon the meaning of the words he uses can only have shallow thoughts, for he merely parrots the words of others, and the meaning others ascribe to them.

Oh, and anyone too lazy to learn proper grammar doesn't exactly inpire respect.

I bow down and worship the perfect and well respected French.

*runs to the restroom and pukes*

ah much better.

You're absolutely correct, I could care less about my imperfections.

Good. Then do something about them. :p

You're absolutely correct, I could care less about my imperfections. I must not be as perfect as you or anyone else for that matter.

No I am not perfect, I am human. Atleast I am man enough to admit when I'm wrong unlike some Europeans in this forum.

Did it make you feel important, when you pointed the grammar error?

What is it like to be perfect? Must be nice. Again, I would like to salute you....:upyours:

Try keeping your opponents straight, dear fellow - as I wasn't the one to point out your error in grammar. Or is this misapprehension of yours just - symptomatic of something far more dire?

I'd tend to assume so.

You've been around, what, two seconds? And already you feel you know this place? I've been here over two years, and I still don't know it well enough to make a statement like that.


hmmmm......now that is the correct concept of time.

"Last I known"? Wow...

I must also applaud your subtlelty, keen intellect, well thought-out argument and sens de la répartie. Truly, you impress me.

Sarcasm aside, if you have such a poor grasp of the English language, you cannot hope to express yourself in a coherent and intelligent manner (in English, at least). One who never reflects upon the meaning of the words he uses can only have shallow thoughts, for he merely parrots the words of others, and the meaning others ascribe to them.

Oh, and anyone too lazy to learn proper grammar doesn't exactly inpire respect.

I am sure you can do more than attack the grammar of other people. I am confident of this despite your choosing to respond to his post by simply attacking that same grammar.

Well, seemingly how I thought there was a rule on how to stick with the topic.....I don't believe this was supposed to be about grammar but more of how America threatened Pakistan.

You, senior forum people, should have known better than to break the rules.

Please, back on topic of Pakistan, Thanks.

If you want a grammar thread then make a new topic. :D

Well, seemingly how I thought there was a rule on how to stick with the topic.....I don't believe this was supposed to be about grammar but more of how America threatened Pakistan.

You, senior forum people, should have known better than to break the rules.

Please, back on topic of Pakistan, Thanks.

If you want a grammar thread then make a new topic. :D

So, no apologies for gratuitously and unnecessarily flipping me the bird, then eh?

Class. Pure class.

Well, seemingly how I thought there was a rule on how to stick with the topic.....I don't believe this was supposed to be about grammar but more of how America threatened Pakistan.

You, senior forum people, should have known better than to break the rules.

Please, back on topic of Pakistan, Thanks.

If you want a grammar thread then make a new topic. :D

I think the only response to the thread topic is this: Is anyone really surprised that Bush would use that tactic to get the "support" of another country in his war on terror?

I am sure you can do more than attack the grammar of other people. I am confident of this despite your choosing to respond to his post by simply attacking that same grammar.

You know me well enough to know I do. ;)

He hasn't really said all that much yet, which is why I merely pointed out his mistake.

Dismissing a worthy news item as "propaganda" because it doesn't suit him is reprehensible, although I must agree that the question of timing (i.e., delay since the event) is a valid one.

So, no apologies for gratuitously and unnecessarily flipping me the bird, then eh?

Class. Pure class.

I do apologize. I did indeed get a bit irritated that the grammar error needlessly was pointed out so I do apologize for getting carried away and will try not to allow the flamebaiters to get the best of me.

You know me well enough to know I do. ;)

He hasn't really said all that much yet, which is why I merely pointed out his mistake.

Dismissing a worthy news item as "propaganda" because it doesn't suit him is reprehensible, although I must agree that the question of timing (i.e., delay since the event) is a valid one.

Yes, I realize this but it just gets under my skin every time someone points out mistakes in spelling and grammar. Especially me who used to spell grammar as grammer. :D

I can certainly understand the annoyance as claiming this to simply be propaganda. It is exactly something the Bush would do to get the cooperation of a country needed to let Bush have his war. It isn't as if he didn't use strong arm tactics to get others into his "coalition of the willing".

I don't see what the problem is. US threated Pakistan. Pakistan complied. Our operation in Afghanistan went more smoothly. Period.

Did I just read that? Really?

And I thought I was ideologically blind.

---

That said, I'm skeptical about whether or not it actually happened.

Did I just read that? Really?

And I thought I was ideologically blind.

---

That said, I'm skeptical about whether or not it actually happened.hmmm..
are you saying Musharraf made this up?

hmmm..
are you saying Musharraf made this up?

I'm saying that such a threat would be so out of line that even the Bush Admin wouldn't think of it.

Keep the anti-America propaganda coming

True there is a lot of anti-american proganda crap out there i definetly agree.

However it isnt like our own government doesn't do the same thing everday to other countries.

flipping me the bird.
I never understood that phrase? Is it particularly an American continental thing or....?

Where did that originate from? :eek:

Well, I'm not going to believe that article, mainly because it took it 5 yrs to come out, that alone makes it suspicious.

I never understood that phrase? Is it particularly an American continental thing or....?

Where did that originate from? :eek:I do not know..

how do you guys call the middle-finger-gesture ?

You mean you can't, or, better still, couldn't. Why is it so many people are incapable of using proper English grammar, even when the meaning of the words they use should be obvious?

who cares about spelling is this a dysertation.

Well, I'm not going to believe that article, mainly because it took it 5 yrs to come out, that alone makes it suspicious.are you saying Musharraf made this up?

Yes, reporting the comments of the leader of an ally of the US is "anti-America" propaganda.

God, you lot are getting more desperate by the day...

Lot and what do you mean by you lot?

Well, I'm not going to believe that article, mainly because it took it 5 yrs to come out, that alone makes it suspicious.

It often takes a while for information to come out. I am not surprised at all. Or suspicious for that matter.

how do you guys call the middle-finger-gesture ?

Well, that really...

are you saying Musharraf made this up?

he might of. Its not like we have been treating Musharraf as the best ally considering America has been giving preferential treatment to India because of thier rapidly buildning economy Americans want a slice of the pie while pakistan seems to be going no where fast that has got to stick in his craw he is pissed at Americans already for what he views (and should view) as unfair treatment of an ally.

Then again he might not have hehehe, were there any witnesses besides pakistannis or Americans?

I never understood that phrase? Is it particularly an American continental thing or....?

Where did that originate from? :eek:

Typically its spelled flipping a person the birdy not bird i think. But the expresion is pretty common in America i dont know about Europe.

he might of. ()
Then again he might not have hehehe, were there any witnesses besides pakis?i see..were there any witnesses besides pakis?chances are.. there is no witnesses.

i see..chances are.. there is no witnesses.

Well then i could believe it either way.

Musharraf wants to get rid of the Islamic radicals, especially the sectarian terrorists, but the problem is that he can't.

You make a lot of unsupported assertions there.

1.Musharraf wants to get rid of the Islamic radicals

Evidence suggests otherwise. Musharraf used the very same radicals during his Gilgit posting (used Arab sunni militia against Gilgit Shias in the early 80s during what is now called Gilgit riots). He used the jihadis for the Kargil intrusion, of which he was the chief architect (he was the COAS at that time). He has never acted against the taliban leadership and infrastructure in his country. He has never acted against Lashkar e Toiba and Jaish e Muhammed in his country. In the aftermath of the recent earthquake, it was pretty clear that he conceded space to the Jamaat ud Dawa (a front for LeT) for the relief work (this is corroborated by the western aid agencies there).

What makes you think that he as abandoned all this and had a change of heart regarding the use of jihadis? His words? That ain't worth anything. It is his actions that count and so far they do not indicate that he has given up the use of jihadis as a tool. The day he marches his men into the LeT HQ in Muridke is when I will believe ur claim.

2. especially the sectarian terrorists

What do you mean by sectarian? The usual meaning is the militants of sunni sect targetting the shias. That has not been abated at all. Targeted killing of shia clerics and professionals still continue (of what's left of them anyway). The Lashkar e Janghvi and Sipah e Sahaba, the main sectarian groups are still active. Recently, even a Barelvi cleric (sunni) was targetted by the ahle-hadith/Deobandis.

3. but the problem is that he can't.

No. The problem is that he won't.

I mean to say the Pakistan army which he heads, has the capablity (as in means, manpower and firepower) to wipe out any group if they wanted to. But they won't. Because they need the jihadis for their proxy war with India. They cannot go against one group of jihadis (anti-US like the taliban, anti-Shia like the SeS, LeJ) and ask them to stop jihad and turn around and ask the other groups like the LeT and JeM to do jihad. That is their problem. A problem entirely of their own making due to their patronising of these jihadi groups.


The tax system hardly collects any revenue and the system is corrupt. He has a strong hold on the army, indeed he has kicked out many of the theocratic-leaning officers.

Is that why he created the MMA - Muttahida Majlis e Amal party (aka Military - Mullah Alliance), even though the clerics in MMA openly swear allegiance with taliban ?

Is that why he split the PML party and created a PML (Q) splinter which facilitated the MMA to gain more seats ?


The ultra-fundamentalist NWFP you mention is and always has been a problem.

The problem is and has always been the Pakistan army.

Almost all of the AQ types caught in the past have been caught in Pakistani cities, not the NWFP.

Just a sample
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - Rawalpindi - the military headquarters.
Yassir al-Jazeeri - Lahore - "cultural capital" of Pakistan
Ramzi Binalshibh - Karachi - main port and biggest city of Pak.

Look it up. All the bigwigs would have been caught in the cities. Not in some caves in NWFP.

Then again he might not have hehehe, were there any witnesses besides pakis?

That's a pretty offensive term, there fella. The sort that'd get the tar beaten out of you in a lotta places.

That's a pretty offensive term, there fella. The sort that'd get the tar beaten out of you in a lotta places.

Offensive i didnt mean it as deragtory merely as a shortened version pakistani if it had any derragorty meaning i wasnt aware of it and apoligize.

Offensive i didnt mean it as deragtory merely as a shortened version pakistani if it had any derragorty meaning i wasnt aware of it and apoligize.

I'm not personally offended; but you should know about these things in advance of sticking your foot in your mouth in bad company - right? Don't ever call a Pakistani a "Paki" - not unless you're looking to provoke one intentionally, I suppose.

I'm not personally offended; but you should know about these things in advance of sticking your foot in your mouth in bad company - right? Don't ever call a Pakistani a "Paki" - not unless you're looking to provoke one intentionally, I suppose.

Is there a certain bad history behind the term?

I shouldn't of responded on my last message....didn't realize it was a Frenchie. I guess I'm just another one of those idiots from America. :D

OK, I'm an American and I also think you're a neocon idiot with poor grammar.

Is there a certain bad history behind the term?

Like "Mick", "Polak", "Eyetie".

"Paki" is used as a racial slur, I've seen/heard it first hand. Just be aware and careful in the future.

It was a term used by UK skinheads/racists to call "brown people" as "Pakis" (because there are a lot of people from Pak descent in UK). Hence it is treated as a un-PC word in UK and I think Canada.

But this thing is unheard of elsewhere in the world. Since this site is hosted in the UK, you have to comply with that or else risk getting banned. I was banned twice for that by a strategically silly mod.

OK, I'm an American and I also think you're a neocon idiot with poor grammar.

It's a free country think what you will.

I made that comment due to the fact that I went under fire, I personally do not care what your poor accusations are.

Restassured I am NOT a neocon nor am I an idiot.

Like "Mick", "Polak", "Eyetie".

"Paki" is used as a racial slur, I've seen/heard it first hand. Just be aware and careful in the future.

Ok thanks didnt know that and Apologize again for using it.

*snip*

Do us all a favor and keep your Indian Nationalist predjudices out of this. They have no place in this discussion. You're not helping, in fact I'd go so far as to suggest that you're not really trying to. Musharraf isn't much, but he's better than the alternative and us threatening him was perhaps not the best way to kick the War on Terror off.

It was a term used by UK skinheads/racists to call "brown people" as "Pakis" (because there are a lot of people from Pak descent in UK). Hence it is treated as a un-PC word in UK and I think Canada.

But this thing is unheard of elsewhere in the world. Since this site is hosted in the UK, you have to comply with that or else risk getting banned. I was banned twice for that by a strategically silly mod.

Like i said i didnt know of the signifgance I have never heard the term used before like that. I wont use it again.

Do us all a favor and keep your Indian Nationalist predjudices out of this. They have no place in this discussion. You're not helping, in fact I'd go so far as to suggest that you're not really trying to. Musharraf isn't much, but he's better than the alternative and us threatening him was perhaps not the best way to kick the War on Terror off.

I think that people of India would probably know more about Pakistan than you or I or even the people of the UK.

You seem to be pretty moody I hope your day has been going okay. :)

Musharraf isn't much, but he's better than the alternative

How much is much when you say Musharraf isn't much ?

Who is the alternative and Why would that alternative not be better?

Maybe it *was* made clear that the US would bomb Pakistan if he didn't help.

Is it possible he's saying this to avoid being attacked by other nations?
"I had to help them or they would bomb me!"

Who is the alternative and Why would that alternative not be better?the better alternative is a president.. elected by the People..

and when I say elected.. I am not talking about the kind of "elections" they have in Egypt.

..but I have to agree with the previous poster.. You anti-Pakistan Bias can be seen from miles away.

the better alternative is a president.. elected by the People..

and when I say elected.. I am not talking about the kind of "elections" they have in Egypt.

..but I have to agree with the previous poster.. You anti-Pakistan Bias can be seen from miles away.

I wouldn't be tossing the bias label around there biasboy.

Is it possible he's saying this to avoid being attacked by other nations?

He has a habit of making such sensational statements to be in the news. Since he has written a book (In the line of fire), I would expect that he would be making more such statements for publicity.

the better alternative is a president.. elected by the People..

And insisting that "After Musharrf the deluge and there is no better alternative" helps the democratic process how?

added later: ignoring your "bias" label. You should be the last person to label others biased. Besides I don't care for yours or anybody's labels. Prove me wrong and I will listen.

Maybe it *was* made clear that the US would bomb Pakistan if he didn't help.

Is it possible he's saying this to avoid being attacked by other nations?
"I had to help them or they would bomb me!"

Well the big question then would be, who's exerting that kind of control over Pakistan? Other than the US - as Musharraf is alleging, that is.

I wouldn't be tossing the bias label around there biasboy.I have been around very long.. and I have been labeled a lot of things.. Commie/fascist/Nazi/Pinko/Anti-everithing..

I am label-vaccinated.

But I still say he is 100% pro-Indian anti-Pakistan.
wich is maybe not a bad thing in itself..

How much is much when you say Musharraf isn't much ?

Who is the alternative and Why would that alternative not be better?
In Pakistan the alternative is spineless leaders who can't and won't stand up to the Islamic radicals, or even worse, the radicals themselves.

You make a lot of unsupported assertions there.

1.Musharraf wants to get rid of the Islamic radicals

Evidence suggests otherwise. Musharraf used the very same radicals during his Gilgit posting (used Arab sunni militia against Gilgit Shias in the early 80s during what is now called Gilgit riots). He used the jihadis for the Kargil intrusion, of which he was the chief architect (he was the COAS at that time). He has never acted against the taliban leadership and infrastructure in his country. He has never acted against Lashkar e Toiba and Jaish e Muhammed in his country. In the aftermath of the recent earthquake, it was pretty clear that he conceded space to the Jamaat ud Dawa (a front for LeT) for the relief work (this is corroborated by the western aid agencies there).

What makes you think that he as abandoned all this and had a change of heart regarding the use of jihadis? His words? That ain't worth anything. It is his actions that count and so far they do not indicate that he has given up the use of jihadis as a tool. The day he marches his men into the LeT HQ in Muridke is when I will believe ur claim.

2. especially the sectarian terrorists

What do you mean by sectarian? The usual meaning is the militants of sunni sect targetting the shias. That has not been abated at all. Targeted killing of shia clerics and professionals still continue (of what's left of them anyway). The Lashkar e Janghvi and Sipah e Sahaba, the main sectarian groups are still active. Recently, even a Barelvi cleric (sunni) was targetted by the ahle-hadith/Deobandis.

3. but the problem is that he can't.

No. The problem is that he won't.

I mean to say the Pakistan army which he heads, has the capablity (as in means, manpower and firepower) to wipe out any group if they wanted to. But they won't. Because they need the jihadis for their proxy war with India. They cannot go against one group of jihadis (anti-US like the taliban, anti-Shia like the SeS, LeJ) and ask them to stop jihad and turn around and ask the other groups like the LeT and JeM to do jihad. That is their problem. A problem entirely of their own making due to their patronising of these jihadi groups.
1. I'm not saying that Musharraf is above political expedience. But he actually spoke out against the Islamists, which is something that virtually no Pakistani leader dared to do before.

2. I pointed out that he wasn't successful.

3. Yeah, you're right, the Jammu Kashmir shit always gets in the way, because the Pakistani military has so much material and emotional commitment to that fight.

(I am) ignoring your "bias" label.#1 That is what I do.. and that is what you should do. (thumbs up) You should be the last person to label others biased.
#2 My free speech is not negotiable
Besides I don't care for yours or anybody's labels. Prove me wrong and I will listen.see #1.

And insisting that "After Musharrf the deluge and there is no better alternative" helps the democratic process how?I doesnt.. Musharrf is a dictator.

the better alternative is a president.. elected by the People.
Have you seen the kind of leaders the people of Pakistan have elected? Probably the most docile, least effective politicians ever.

Is it possible he's saying this to avoid being attacked by other nations?
Who would attack Pakistan nowadays?

Have you seen the kind of leaders the people of Pakistan have elected? Probably the most docile, least effective politicians ever.


Who would attack Pakistan nowadays?

India, or some Indians. if they could get away with it. Which is exactly why i think Musharaf might not be a reliable source on this. Because he is pissed at America for showing preferential treatment to india and supporting their nuclear program while all but condemming pakistans.
America is doing this for a few reasons the biggest being India's rappidly growing economy we want to get cozy with them while they are still relativley poor incase they do become rich we can get a slice of the pie.
So it might just be a ploy. not that i blame him for being pissed off at Americans he was supposed to be our ally but we do more for India than we do Pakistan. Although this Pakistani Indian rivalvry is dying down it is still there i think which makes it irates Musharafs craw all the more.

Then again i wouldnt be all to surprised if it was true either.
Although i am leaning to the idea that he is lying on this one.

Who would attack Pakistan nowadays?India. (if they had no Nukes)

Take a closer look to Aryavartha posts..

His family likely belongs to the Educated Indian Elite.. (educated in the west, english espeaking, Internet acces, etc)

Its people like him who are in place to lead India.. most of them hate Pakistan.
And Its just the same on the Pakistani side.

In Pakistan the alternative is spineless leaders who can't and won't stand up to the Islamic radicals,

As opposed to military generals who can't and won't stand up to the islamic radicals?

or even worse, the radicals themselves.
As opposed to military generals who created, armed, funded, trained, used and are still using the very same radicals ?

Explain me how.

Is it because Mushy is clean shaven, wears Armani while in the west and talks about "enlightened moderation" that he is agreeable than a bearded mullah or Benazir/Nawaz type politicos ?


1. I'm not saying that Musharraf is above political expedience. But he actually spoke out against the Islamists, which is something that virtually no Pakistani leader dared to do before.

Speakin out != change in reality.

Who would attack Pakistan nowadays?

India

As opposed to military generals who can't and won't stand up to the islamic radicals?
Yes.

As opposed to military generals who created, armed, funded, trained, used and are still using the very same radicals?
Yes.

Explain me how.
They're no worse.

Is it because Mushy is clean shaven, wears Armani while in the west and talks about "enlightened moderation" that he is agreeable than a bearded mullah or Benazir/Nawaz type politicos ?
Yes, for speaking out against radicals, and he appears to be more interested in peace with India than I imagine others would. (aforementioned bearded mullah would probably want holy war with India)


Speakin out != change in reality.
I'm aware of that. I'm saying that Musharraf is the best leader of Pakistan in many decades, but the standard is so low there that it's easy to make him look bad.

India
They'll fight the proxies in Kashmir at most, but no India's not going to attack Pakistan.

.They'll fight the proxies in Kashmir at most, but no India's not going to attack Pakistan.

Obviuosly but is that the threat of nuclear war that is stopping them?

His family likely belongs to the Educated Indian Elite.. (educated in the west, english espeaking, Internet acces, etc)


You don't know me. I come from a very humble background. My background has got nothing to do with this.

"educated, english speaking, internet access" would describe probably 200 million Indians. Not exactly "elite" is it?;)

I'm saying that Musharraf is the best leader of Pakistan in many decades...hmm..
sorry I cannot agree with that.

"educated, english speaking, internet access" would describe probably 200 million Indians. Not exactly "elite" is it?;)If you quote me properly.. you would read educated in the West.

you could always try to tell us that 200 million indians can afford that.. but I am not buying it.

You don't know me. I come from a very humble background. My background has got nothing to do with this.

"educated, english speaking, internet access" would describe probably 200 million Indians. Not exactly "elite" is it?;)

Considering India's population, that is a minority a big minority and could still be refered to as an "elite"

They'll fight the proxies in Kashmir at most, but no India's not going to attack Pakistan.

I didn't say India was going to attack Pakistan....You asked who would want to attack Pakistan and I answered India which I feel that is pretty accurate.

India would like to attack Pakistan but due to the nuclear issue and also the West's influence probably won't.

Yes, for speaking out against radicals, and he appears to be more interested in peace with India than I imagine others would. (aforementioned bearded mullah would probably want holy war with India)

As opposed to Musharraf and the Pak army?

The Pakistan army's motto is "Iman, Taqwa, Jihad fi Sabilillah"

The last phrase means, "Jihad in the way of Allah".

Musharraf is no more interested in peace with Indian than any mullah/politico. He was the main person behind the Kargil war which was after the Lahore peace process. When Vajpayee went in the "peace bus" to Lahore to meet Nawaz Sheriff, Musharraf was busy plotting intrusion in Kargil and provoking a war with India.


I'm saying that Musharraf is the best leader of Pakistan in many decades,

Why?

Under Musharraf, every other ethnicity is suffering except his core constituency of Punjab-Mohajir combo. Incidents like Kalabagh dam, the killing of Nawab Bugti of Balochistan, his creation of MMA, his continued indulgence of jihadi groups etc do not bore well at all for Pakistan as a whole.

In Pakistan you don't say somebody is a better leader. You can only say who is worse.

I come from a very humble background. My background has got nothing to do with this. lets say that your background would have nothing to do with your anti-Pakistan dicourse.. because many Indians from all backrounds are anti-Pakistan (or maybe anti-Muslim).

so lets me ask the (bottom-line) question.. about your line of tough.. are you in-sinc with the mainstream Indian line of tough ?

hmm..
sorry I cannot agree with that.
So who has been better?

Your backrond has nothing to do with your anti-Pakistan dicourse.. because Indians from all backrounds are anti-Pakistan.

the bottom line is.. about your line of tough.. are you in-sinc with the Indian line of tough ?

I personally haven't seen anything said to be anti-pakistani. Just my 2 cents probably 2 cents to much. :D

I personally haven't seen anything said to be anti-pakistani. Just my 2 cents probably 2 cents to much. :D

Its a bit of a stretch to say all Indians are anti pakistani or vice versa but it really is quite a large number of people in both countries still really dont like the other.

So who has been better?In my book any elected President is better than a dictator.

I just hate all Dictators.. I do have an anti-Dictator bias.. (and that is why I would tend to like the Indian Gov better)

lets say that your background would have nothing to do with your anti-Pakistan dicourse

Careful there. I am anti-Pakistan establishment. It is not equal to anti-Pakistan, especially since the establishment is a non-representative one (unelected).

.. because many Indians from all backrounds are anti-Pakistan (or maybe anti-Muslim).

Yeah, people tend to hate those from another country who continue to kill them.

Strange isn't it. :rolleyes:

Also, nice try with your "anti-muslim" insertion there.


so lets me ask the (bottom-line) question.. about your line of tough.. are you in-sinc with the mainstream Indian line of tough ?

That depends on what the issue is. Indians are amongst the most argumentative people. Between two Indians, there will be three opinions.

Its a bit of a stretch to say all Indians are anti pakistani or vice versa but it really is quite a large number of people in both countries still really dont like the other.
I learn a lot in these Forums..

I knew that they they not like each others.. But I did not know how deep it was..

Aryavartha, you tend to refer to Pakistanis by the diminutive 'Paks' - you've done it in this thread, and I've seen you do it other threads - and yet, I've never met a Pakistani who refers to himself as a 'Pak', and neither have I met an Indian who refers to Pakistanis as 'Paks'. And I frequently watch the local South Asian nightly news program, too. Never once have I heard or read this particular diminutive until I encountered you.

So what's up with that, anyway?

I never understood that phrase? Is it particularly an American continental thing or....?

Where did that originate from? :eek:

I do not know..

how do you guys call the middle-finger-gesture ?


“Giving the bird” was originally British theatrical slang of the early 1800s, meaning to drive a performer off the stage with goose-like hisses. It came to mean any kind of rejection or ridicule.

By the turn of the century, “bird” was also slang for various private body parts, including the penis. It was apparently US military pilots who put the terms together to call the middle finger “giving the bird” in the 1960s.
http://archives.stupidquestion.net/sq51100finger.html

The gesture itself dates to the ancient Greeks - Aristophanes spoke of it in The Clouds. The Romans knew it as digitus infamis digitus impudicus. </pedagogy>

I learn a lot in these Forums..

I knew that they they not like each others.. But I did not know how deep it was..

Alright so that was a bit obviuos.

Aryavartha, you tend to refer to Pakistanis by the diminutive 'Paks' - you've done it in this thread, and I've seen you do it other threads - and yet, I've never met a Pakistani who refers to himself as a 'Pak', and neither have I met an Indian who refers to Pakistanis as 'Paks'. And I frequently watch the local South Asian nightly news program, too. Never once have I heard or read this particular diminutive until I encountered you.

So what's up with that, anyway?

Plain laziness. I can't use "paki" because it is a racist word in UK (where this server is hosted). I have already been given two warnings, so I try to be careful nowadays. But I am also lazy, so I use Pak instead.

Do us all a favor and keep your Indian Nationalist predjudices out of this. They have no place in this discussion. You're not helping, in fact I'd go so far as to suggest that you're not really trying to. Musharraf isn't much, but he's better than the alternative and us threatening him was perhaps not the best way to kick the War on Terror off.

Sounds similar to the "Mobutu or chaos" excuse the West used to prop up Mobutu Sese Seko.

Will do.

President Bush sacrifices children to Baal. There you go - as per your request.

Anybody else care to contribute?

Canadians convert to Wahhabism en masse - film at 11...

Before the Sept 11, 2001 attacks, Pakistan was one of the only countries in the world to maintain relations with the Taliban, which was harboring al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, and many Pakistanis were sympathetic with the neighboring Islamic state.

But within days of the attacks Musharraf cut his government's ties to the Taliban regime and cooperated with U.S. efforts to track and capture Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces that sought refuge in Pakistan.


Whatever he said to him and whatever the truth is ...it worked for a while .


But I killed Baal in Diablo ...and then in Disgaea ...was it the Prinny Baal that ate the kids ?

I wish I would have known .

Consider that Musharraf has to play to Pakistanis for political support. He has to appear independent, and has to appear as though he had no choice but to cooperate.

Whether or not the actual threat was made in that manner (or at all) is hardly provable.

What is clear, from recent news, is that Bush says that if they have information (good, clear information) that Osama is in a specific location in Pakistan, he's not going to ask Musharraf for permission to go in there and get him.

I bow down and worship the perfect and well respected French.

*runs to the restroom and pukes*

ah much better.

She is very welcome to speak French here, as french sounds very beautiful.


As long as its Alizeè singing it. ;)

He has to say crap like this, true or not, to keep the islamists in his country in check. Many of them see him as a traitor because they think he's too close to the USA. This gives him an excuse. "I had to work with the Americans or Pakistanis would die"

Now since his nation is harboring Al Qaeda and Taliban and he doesn't seem to be doing much about it, I think maybe we should bomb him. Bomb the shit out of his nuclear weapons, reactors and centrifuges. Just in case the islamists take power, and to send a message that harboring al qaeda is unacceptable and there will be consequences.

He has to say crap like this, true or not, to keep the islamists in his country in check. Many of them see him as a traitor because they think he's too close to the USA. This gives him an excuse. "I had to work with the Americans or Pakistanis would die"

Now since his nation is harboring Al Qaeda and Taliban and he doesn't seem to be doing much about it, I think maybe we should bomb him. Bomb the shit out of his nuclear weapons, reactors and centrifuges. Just in case the islamists take power, and to send a message that harboring al qaeda is unacceptable and there will be consequences.
More bombing whoohoo!!

Everybody knows that more bombing means less enemies

More bombing whoohoo!!

Everybody knows that more bombing means less enemies

Only if you use nukes.

Sure made Japan pretty friendly in short order.

More bombing whoohoo!!

Everybody knows that more bombing means less enemies

I'd just rather not see Pakistan's nukes fall into Al Qaeda's hands if there is a revolution or if the Radical Islamist scum win an election.

It was a term used by UK skinheads/racists to call "brown people" as "Pakis" (because there are a lot of people from Pak descent in UK). Hence it is treated as a un-PC word in UK and I think Canada.

But this thing is unheard of elsewhere in the world. Since this site is hosted in the UK, you have to comply with that or else risk getting banned. I was banned twice for that by a strategically silly mod.

Yes, In Canada, it is a horrible insult. When I saw you using it, I first thought you were a skinhead. Then I read more of your posts and realised that Paki must have a different meaning where you are.

Yes, In Canada, it is a horrible insult. When I saw you using it, I first thought you were a skinhead. Then I read more of your posts and realised that Paki must have a different meaning where you are.

It's not apparently an insult in the DC area.

Nearly every Indian programmer I've met in this area refers to people from Pakistan with that word, in front of people from Pakistan, who don't seem to be upset by it in the least.

Yes, In Canada, it is a horrible insult. When I saw you using it, I first thought you were a skinhead. Then I read more of your posts and realised that Paki must have a different meaning where you are.

Same here in the UK, it's very offensive. And, I might add, usually aimed at Indians just as much as Pakistanis.

Idiots.

Only if you use nukes.

Sure made Japan pretty friendly in short order.

I have trouble believing you are stupid enough to suggest a nuclear attack on a country that has both nuclear weapons and possible ties to terrorists.

I will, therefore, assume you were joking.

As for the Paki thing, in Canada it is often used to insult Indians as well. It is odd that we don't follow the US in this instance of word usage.

I have trouble believing you are stupid enough to suggest a nuclear attack on a country that has both nuclear weapons and possible ties to terrorists.

I will, therefore, assume you were joking.

As for the Paki thing, in Canada it is often used to insult Indians as well. It is odd that we don't follow the US in this instance of word usage.

No one here except Indians seem to even know the term exists here.

As to a nuclear attack, Pakistan has few nuclear weapons, probably positioned with their delivery systems (aircraft and missiles).

A massive nuclear strike, by surprise, by SLBMs, would effectively destroy their entire nuclear arsenal, their entire population, and effectively destroy a massive system of support for terrorists.

No one would survive.

Now, there would be a lot of angst, and bad PR, but if the hits were all airbursts, there would effectively be zero fallout.

I'm not saying it would be smart - I'm just saying it would be possible.

No one here except Indians seem to even know the term exists here.

As to a nuclear attack, Pakistan has few nuclear weapons, probably positioned with their delivery systems (aircraft and missiles).

A massive nuclear strike, by surprise, by SLBMs, would effectively destroy their entire nuclear arsenal, their entire population, and effectively destroy a massive system of support for terrorists.

No one would survive.

Now, there would be a lot of angst, and bad PR, but if the hits were all airbursts, there would effectively be zero fallout.

I'm not saying it would be smart - I'm just saying it would be possible.

While your scenario could technically work, it can not guarantee that the threat is entirely annihilated. If it is not, there would undoubtedly be reprisals. I think enough people and nuclear technology would survive that a small dirty bomb would end up exploding in Manhattan. Your mileage may vary.

While your scenario could technically work, it can not guarantee that the threat is entirely annihilated. If it is not, there would undoubtedly be reprisals. I think enough people and nuclear technology would survive that a small dirty bomb would end up exploding in Manhattan. Your mileage may vary.

A single warhead salted with magnesium (to form sodium-24) would kill every living thing in Pakistan. Including the insects. And you could walk in a month later, and occupy it.

There would be no survivors in a 6000 rad/hr exposure area that would blanket the entire country.

How I knew Bush was lying when he denied knowledge of the threats - When he said that the first time he heard of the threats issued to Pakistan was when he read about it the newspaper that morning....

yeah right. Bush doesn't read the newspaper. He just can't stop lying.

I really wish our leaders would quit acting like such idiots.

A single warhead salted with magnesium (to form sodium-24) would kill every living thing in Pakistan. Including the insects. And you could walk in a month later, and occupy it.

There would be no survivors in a 6000 rad/hr exposure area that would blanket the entire country.

Again, this only works if every single person who militantly supports Pakistan is within the kill zone. For some silly reason, I think some of these guys might also be in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As for the OP, I would not be surprised to find out Musharraf is lying. He has not shown himself to be very trustworthy. However, the same could be said for many of the people who have formed US foreign policy. He seems to be stuck between his support for jihadists, and his support (willing or not) of the US.

Again, this only works if every single person who militantly supports Pakistan is within the kill zone. For some silly reason, I think some of these guys might also be in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As for the OP, I would not be surprised to find out Musharraf is lying. He has not shown himself to be very trustworthy. However, the same could be said for many of the people who have formed US foreign policy. He seems to be stuck between his support for jihadists, and his support (willing or not) of the US.

Oh, I figure some are living in Miami. And a lot of completely innocent, uninvolved people would find themselves dead. Including people in the various -istans, and parts of India, depending on where the wind blew.

Yes, In Canada, it is a horrible insult. When I saw you using it, I first thought you were a skinhead. Then I read more of your posts and realised that Paki must have a different meaning where you are.

It has no meaing were i am at least not that i had ever heard used. Course I dont exactly hang out with those fluent in racial slurs in my country. Me a skinhead, very sorry if I gave that impression.

A single warhead salted with magnesium (to form sodium-24) would kill every living thing in Pakistan. Including the insects. And you could walk in a month later, and occupy it.

There would be no survivors in a 6000 rad/hr exposure area that would blanket the entire country.
How could one bomb kill everything in a country of 880,000 km²?

And how could you just march in with all that radiation in the air?

Why would you want to occupy a country where every single living thing is dead? What would be the point?

How could one bomb kill everything in a country of 880,000 km²?

And how could you just march in with all that radiation in the air?

Magnesium converts to Sodium-24 in the explosion.

It is not only highly likely to end up in any biological organism (like people), it has an extremely short half-life (meaning that it's a really hot emitter), and within a month or two, you no longer need protection.

But for those first few days, even in protection, you're likely to be fried.

A single warhead salted with magnesium (to form sodium-24) would kill every living thing in Pakistan. Including the insects. And you could walk in a month later, and occupy it.

There would be no survivors in a 6000 rad/hr exposure area that would blanket the entire country.

Don't give any one any ideas. Some nutjobs might actually consider it.

Magnesium converts to Sodium-24 in the explosion.

It is not only highly likely to end up in any biological organism (like people), it has an extremely short half-life (meaning that it's a really hot emitter), and within a month or two, you no longer need protection.

But for those first few days, even in protection, you're likely to be fried.

Yes I am sure the countries surrounding pakistan would be absolutley thrilled if this were to happen. Because the Indians wouldn't consider nuking us back if we blew up any kind of A-bomb right next store to them.

Magnesium converts to Sodium-24 in the explosion.

It is not only highly likely to end up in any biological organism (like people), it has an extremely short half-life (meaning that it's a really hot emitter), and within a month or two, you no longer need protection.

But for those first few days, even in protection, you're likely to be fried.

Yeah, but one salted bomb won't produce enough fallout to cover all 880,254 km². And even if it was enough, it has a half-life of 15 hours, meaning it'd take 25h30m to travel from say Islamabad to Lahore, if it found a 55 km/h jet stream.

Two-thirds of it would have merrily turned into Magnesium before it got from one end of the country to the other, even if it found a nonexistant jet stream and even if none were deposited (it would be very thinly) over the distance inbetween.

It'd make nasty fallout, yes- over a small area. At least, that's how A-Level Physics puts it :D

http://www.elpais.es/articulo/internacional/Preparaos/ser/bombardeados/volver/edad/piedra/elpporint/20060921elpepuint_8/Tes/

"Get prepared for being bombed and for your return to the Stone Age."



http://www.bartcop.com/ricodog-psycho.JPG


¡VIVA LA DEMOCRACIA!

Why would you want to occupy a country where every single living thing is dead? What would be the point?
Indeed the point of occupation is to dominate other people and make them work for you.

I can understand why the US MIGHT have done it. Pakistan was the Taliban's chief supporter, and ESPECIALLY in the aftermath of 9/11, we were very angry.
Not exactly justified, but understandable. Of course, Musharraf did the smart thing and helped the US.

No wonder they quickly became our closest allies.

COMMENTARY: I don't see why this was necessary. I imagine that macho American official wanted to get blood revenge on as many people as possible.

Seriously it's silly. There were plenty of incentives for Musharraf to support America without threats.

---------

By Gertrude Chavez-Dreyfuss

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan said that after the September 11 attacks the United States threatened to bomb his country if it did not cooperate with America's campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Musharraf, in an interview with CBS news magazine show "60 Minutes" that will air Sunday, said the threat came from Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and was given to Musharraf's intelligence director.

"The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age,'" Musharraf said. "I think it was a very rude remark."

Armitage was not immediately available to comment, and U.S. State Department spokesman Tom Casey declined comment on the remarks by Musharraf, who is now in Washington and is due to meet President George Bush in the White House on Friday.

The Pakistani leader, whose remarks were distributed to the media by CBS, said he reacted to the threat in a responsible way. "One has to think and take actions in the interest of the nation, and that's what I did," Musharraf said.

Before the Sept 11, 2001 attacks, Pakistan was one of the only countries in the world to maintain relations with the Taliban, which was harboring al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, and many Pakistanis were sympathetic with the neighboring Islamic state.

But within days of the attacks Musharraf cut his government's ties to the Taliban regime and cooperated with U.S. efforts to track and capture Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces that sought refuge in Pakistan.

The official 9/11 Commission report on the attacks and their aftermath, based largely on government documents, said U.S. national security officials focused immediately on securing Pakistani cooperation as they planned a response.

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



Well again , I say whatever really went on worked for awhile...and the US doesn't need to destroy anything of real value exceprt the people we want gone...


"Tactical neutron bombs are primarily intended to kill soldiers who are protected by armor. Armored vehicles are very resistant to blast and heat produced by nuclear weapons, but steel armor can reduce neutron radiation only by a modest amount so the lethal range from neutrons greatly exceeds that of other weapon effects. The lethal range for tactical neutron bombs can exceed the lethal range for blast and heat even for unprotected troops. Armor can absorb neutrons and neutron energy, thus reducing the neutron radiation to which the tank crew is exposed, but this offset to some extent by the fact that armor can also react harmfully with neutrons. Alloy steels for example can develop induced radioactivity that remains dangerous for some time. When fast neutrons are slowed down, the energy lost can show up as x-rays. Some types of armor, like that of the M-1 tank, employ depleted uranium which can undergo fast fission, generating additional neutrons and becoming radioactive. Special neutron absorbing armor techniques have also been developed, such as armors containing boronated plastics and the use of vehicle fuel as a shield."

reference: http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Outlaws/faq1

"Also called ENHANCED RADIATION WARHEAD, specialized type of small thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but which releases large amounts of lethal radiation. The neutron bomb delivers blast and heat effects that are confined to an area of only a few hundred yards in radius. But within a somewhat larger area it throws off a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation, which can penetrate armour or several feet of earth. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. Because of its short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect, the neutron bomb would be highly effective against tank and infantry formations on the battlefield but would not endanger cities or other population centres only a few miles away. It can be carried in a Lance missile or delivered by an 8-inch (200-millimetre) howitzer, or possibly by attack aircraft.

In strategic terms, the neutron bomb has a theoretical deterrent effect: discouraging an armoured ground assault by arousing the fear of neutron bomb counterattack. The bomb would disable enemy tank crews in minutes, and those exposed would die within days. U.S. production of the bomb was postponed in 1978 and resumed in 1981."



So bow down and dont bother hiding the keys ...and really .........dont piss us off .

Yes, In Canada, it is a horrible insult. When I saw you using it, I first thought you were a skinhead. Then I read more of your posts and realised that Paki must have a different meaning where you are.

I do keep my hair short, but I don't think I am a skinhead.:p "Paki" is not an offensive word and just means a short form of "Pakistani" for non-UK (and I suppose non-canadian) subcontinentals. I have several online and real life Pak friends and "Paki" is regularly used, but no one takes offence (because none was meant, especially since being Indian means that I too am a "paki" so to speak).

Anyways, here's something which captures the problem rather clearly.

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/667/insetcartoonqueue191707767251gv5.jpg

Yeah, but one salted bomb won't produce enough fallout to cover all 880,254 km². And even if it was enough, it has a half-life of 15 hours, meaning it'd take 25h30m to travel from say Islamabad to Lahore, if it found a 55 km/h jet stream.

Two-thirds of it would have merrily turned into Magnesium before it got from one end of the country to the other, even if it found a nonexistant jet stream and even if none were deposited (it would be very thinly) over the distance inbetween.

It'd make nasty fallout, yes- over a small area. At least, that's how A-Level Physics puts it :D

One W-85 warhead salted in this manner is enough to depopulate Poland in one stroke. At least that's what exercise calculations say.

So, maybe we need a couple to do Pakistan.

In any case, the half-life is 28 days. More than enough time to fry every living thing in the country with a few detonations so high in the air that you don't even muss anyone's hair with the blasts.

One W-85 warhead salted in this manner is enough to depopulate Poland in one stroke. At least that's what exercise calculations say.

So, maybe we need a couple to do Pakistan.

In any case, the half-life is 28 days. More than enough time to fry every living thing in the country with a few detonations so high in the air that you don't even muss anyone's hair with the blasts.

You'd have a job using a W85, they were retired in 1988 and recycled into the B61 Mod 10s.

You'd have a job using a W85, they were retired in 1988 and recycled into the B61 Mod 10s.

Yes, but the sleeve in an inherent part of the design. Hehe. It's an add-on to the variable yield.

The B-61 has variable yield as well, and I would bet they reused the sleeve.

(to Katganistan0 Who would attack Pakistan nowadays?

Oh, I dunno -- extremists who don't like that he's been working with the US?
Besides, since dropping this "bomb" on the media, he's refused to elaborate, citing his deal with Simon and Schuster, so I find it more likely it's to sell the book.

Moreover, Bush kind of laughed the comments off and is still, "We're working together!". I would not be surprised if Mussharaf said this to avoid criticism among Muslims, and Bush KNEW about it ahead of time.

No one here except Indians seem to even know the term exists here.

I work in a school with a large Pakistani population. It's not something you say unless you want trouble.

I work in a school with a large Pakistani population. It's not something you say unless you want trouble.

Not here in the DC area. It's used at work all the time, and no one gets upset about it. The Pakistanis also use it to refer to their cricket team here at work.

I must agree that the question of timing (i.e., delay since the event) is a valid one.
Maybe no-one bothered to ask him up until now.


Though more likely - is this his first visit to the Whitehouse? If so, I would hazard that he's looking to gain some benefit from the US and this is a carefully planned publicity stunt he hopes will back Bush into a corner and force some concessions out of him.

Either that, or there's some trouble brewing back home, anti-US sentiment is growing and he hopes to appease that lot with a carefully thought-out tirade against America. BY showing that he was forced into supporting, maybe he hopes to defuse a situation back in Pakistan and gain a bit of sympathy from the hardliners.

Those are my guesses.

lol.

http://www.asianage.com/files/images/24CARR.JPG

Oh, I figure some are living in Miami. And a lot of completely innocent, uninvolved people would find themselves dead. Including people in the various -istans, and parts of India, depending on where the wind blew.

So, then you agree with me that a nuclear attack against Pakistan would be technically unfeasible and would inevitably lead to reprisals.

"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich." Sir Peter Ustinov
nice sig

nice sig

Actually, it's horrible. Because it's true.

Musharraf's 2 facedness

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/24/wafg24.xml
Omar role in truce reinforces fears that Pakistan 'caved in' to Taliban
By Massoud Ansari in Peshawar and Colin Freeman
(Filed: 24/09/2006)

The fugitive Taliban commander Mullah Omar has emerged as the key player behind the movement's controversial peace deal with Pakistan.

The Taliban's one-eyed spiritual leader, who has a $10 million price on his head for refusing to hand over Osama bin Laden after the September 11 attacks, signed a letter explicitly endorsing the truce announced this month. The deal between the Pakistani authorities and pro-Taliban militants in the tribal provinces bordering Afghanistan was designed to end five years of bloodshed in the area.

In return for an end to the US-backed government campaign in Waziristan, the tribal leaders - who have harboured Taliban and al-Qaeda units for more than five years - agreed to halt attacks on Pakistani troops, more than 500 of whom have been killed. The deal has been widely criticised as over-generous, with no way to enforce the Taliban's promise not to enter Afghanistan to attack coalition troops.

The disclosure that Mullah Omar personally backed the deal will come as a fresh embarrassment to Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, who met President Bush in Washington on Friday to discuss security in the region.

While officially a US ally in the war on terror, Pakistan has been repeatedly accused by Afghanistan of not doing enough to clear Taliban militants out of its border regions, allegations it denies. However, Mullah Omar clearly felt that the deal benefited the Taliban, adding force to criticisms that it was in effect a cave-in. Tribal elders in south Waziristan said that Mullah Omar had sent one of his most trusted and feared commanders, Mullah Dadullah, to ask local militants to sign the truce. Dadullah, a one-legged fighter known for his fondness for beheading his enemies, is believed to be the man leading the campaign in southern Afghanistan in which 18 British troops have been killed.

"Had they been not asked by Mullah Omar, none of them were willing to sign an agreement," said Lateef Afridi, a tribal elder and former national assembly member. "This is no peace agreement, it is accepting Taliban rule in Pakistan's territory."

Waziristan has a 50-mile border with Afghanistan's Paktika province, long a trouble spot for US and Afghan forces in their battle against al-Qaeda and Taliban renegades. It is home to three tiers of Islamists who operate freely. Of greatest security concern is the al-Qaeda element, followed by Afghani Taliban and then local Taliban.

In return for a reduction in the Pakistani army's 80,000-strong presence and the release of about 165 hardcore militants arrested for attacks on Pakistani armed forces, local Taliban agreed to stop supporting the foreign militants in their midst, and promised not to set up their own fundamentalist administrations.

The government also agreed to compensate tribal leaders for the loss of life and property, and to return all weapons and vehicles seized during army operations.

Critics say the deal is a dangerous climb-down by Gen Musharraf, who is under huge pressure from religious conservatives in his own country to curb his US-backed fight against militant Islam.