Pakistanis to Clinton: War on terror is not our war

[unhappycamper]

Pakistanis to Clinton: War on terror is not our war
By Saeed Shah | McClatchy Newspaper
Posted on Friday, October 30, 2009

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- After three days of encounters with America-bashing Pakistanis -- who rejected her contention that the U.S. and Pakistan face a common enemy -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Friday that "we're not getting through."

Prominent women and tribesmen from the North West Frontier Province delivered the same hostile message that she'd heard the two preceding days from students and journalists: Pakistanis aren't ready to endorse American friendship despite an eight-year-old anti-terrorism alliance between the countries and a multi-billion-dollar new U.S. aid package.

Clinton put her case directly to the public Friday in televised appearances in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital, fielding angry questions about the alleged activities of U.S. contractor Blackwater in Pakistan, the tough conditions that came with a $1.5 billion-a-year American aid package and alleged U.S. favoritism toward Pakistan's archenemy, India.

One tribesman bluntly told her: "Your presence in the region is not good for peace."

"We are fighting a war that is imposed on us. It's not our war. It is your war," journalist Asma Shirazi told Clinton during the women's meeting. "You had one 9-11. We are having daily 9-11s in Pakistan."


Rest of article at: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/78125.html

[Chulanowa]

1. "Pakistan's archenemy, India"

Did Stan Lee write this? Anyway... Thanks England!

In the Middle east, "terrorist" has always meant "those guys from the other sect" or "people who criticize my rulership" or "That ethnic group over there" (take your pick, Persians hate Arabs, Arabs hate Turks, Turks hate Kurds, Kurds hate Persians... and all vice versa)

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. Pakistan is part of the war whether these tribesman know it or not

As long as there is Al Queda in Pakistan hell bent on attacking the U.S., it is the Pakistani's war. Let's not forget that Pakistan has been responsible for much of the world's nuclear proliferation through A.Q. Kahn and that the Pakistani ISI security service has been providing training and sanctuary to top Taliban and Al Queda leaders for years.

The fact that the Pakistan government is unable to control major swaths of their country is not the fault of the U.S.

[Toots]

4. There are Al Qaeda in America as well but we don't send drones to kill them.

We send in Law Enforcement. We don't send in the Military nor do we summarily execute them. In America we (supposedly) live under the "Rule of Law". It appears we are taking Law into our own hands throughout the world and especially in Pakistan and that does not jibe with International Law..

[bigtree]

6. your point about the drones is well taken

. . . but it should be said that in the U.S. our system of law enforcement is active and functional, whereas the Pakistanis have regions of their nation where there are states of lawlessness. It's those areas which are the concern of SoS Clinton and others in the administration. She's urging the Pakistanis to police those areas (and the rest of the country) in ways that we take for granted our law enforcement agencies would respond to those threats in America.

[malaise]

8. +1 n/t

[blm]

7. Let's not forget that Poppy Bush and Dubai royals' BCCI dirty operations were FUNDING AQ Khan

and the global terrorist networks who were running drugs and arms for them back then....and, likely never stopped.

You can be certain that many Pakistanis are aware of the decades of involvement even as American media keeps this country virtually unaware of what happened during BCCI and how it impacted this country on 9-11-2001.

[bigtree]

3. it's true that our own interests against al-Qaeda are not always in line with what's good for Pak

. . . but I think this is a bit overstated. In many ways, this conflict we have against al-Qaeda was imposed on us, albeit, with many of our own actions exacerbating the violence and provoking resistance to our military presence and activity.

[malaise]

9. The US has been responsible for the assassination of more than

a new Pakistani leaders. Between the English and the Americans, Pakistanis have never had any real say in the running of their country. Imperialists have one approach - divide, rule and exploit.

[bigtree]

10. true

. . . but, whether instigated or orchestrated or aggravated by America or not, there hasn't really been a unified Pakistan politically for citizens there to have their concerns carried out in their parliament. It's not as if there's some perfect choice in their elections just waiting for them to pick and lead them. You are right, of course that our government has worked to exploit and divide their politics to favor our own ambitions and aims.

[treestar]

5. If they are the ones suffering the attacks, then it is their war

They are the ones who don't have control of their entire country and so leave space for terrorists to hide out.

[Captain Hilts]

11. Then why'd they accept all that money to fight it?

[populistdriven]

12. besides teabaggers who turns down money?