Our Announcements
Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.
Posted by admin in Economics, Foreign Policy, IMRAN KHAN-PAKISTAN'S HERO & DREAMER, Nawaz Dangerous, Nawaz Sharif & Kashmiri Biradari, Nawaz Sharif Dangerous Man, NAWAZ SHARIF DICTATOR, NAWAZ SHARIF FAMILY TURPITUDE, NAWAZ SHARIF LOAN SCAM, Nawaz Sharif Malcontent, Nawaz Sharif Massive Corruption, NAWAZ SHARIF MUZZLES PRESS, NAWAZ SHARIF SAGA OF ABSOLUTE & CHRONIC CORRUPTION, NAWAZ SHARIF THIEF, NAWAZ SHARIF US & SAUDI AGENT, Nawaz Sharif US Agent, NAWAZ SHARIF US CIA ASSET IN PAKISTAN, Nawaz Sharif Womanizer, NAWAZ SHARIF'S ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, Nawaz Sharif-The Prime Minister from Hell, NAWAZ SHARIF: THE LOOTER on October 9th, 2014
TORPEDO ; GOING TO HIT THE SHARIF GOVT . BEWARE
Imran Khan’s Masterclass Against Nawaz Sharif That The Entire Nation Failed To Understand:
As soon as Imran Khan announced his Civil Disobedience movement the entire opposition and twitterati erupted into a tirade of jokes asking questions such as, how would PTI supporters not pay GST on milk, bread and other groceries. Or that if they wont pay the utility bills the utility services would be disconnected and so on.
However, none of these so-called intellectuals were able to understand that what this Civil Disobedience movement is aiming to do is declare Nawaz regime a dictatorial regime and hence render all foreign debts that the regime would contract as unenforceable. As, I have already explained that a debt becomes illegitimate if a) the regime that contracts it is despotic and/or dictatorial and b) it was not spent on the betterment of the nation.
The entire long march is based on the premise that Nawaz Sharif and his party rigged the 2013 General elections and hence the regime is dictatorial and illegitimate. Before announcing the Civil Disobedience movement Imran Khan went into elaborate details of how the Sharif has previously used foreign debt to fill his coffers. What Imran was trying to do here was to establish a case that the foreign debts which this regime would incur would not be spent on the nation but would rather be laundered out of the country to power the business of the Sharif dynasty.
In simpler words Imran has told the entire world and specially the foreign lenders aka (IMF, World Bank and Asian Development Bank) that any loans incurred by the Sharif regime would not be enforceable on the future governments of Pakistan. To make it abundantly clear to our intellectual elite, Imran is telling the foreign lenders that if he ever came to power, he wont pay back the loans that the Sharif regime would borrow. This means that the foreign lenders has only one option left before them and that is to decline all future loans to the Sharif regime. Since, the Sharif regime relies heavily on foreign lending to finance its budget, the move would cripple the government and will bring it down to its knees without any bloodletting on the streets.
I once read a quotation that Brilliance hits a target that no one can hit, Genius hits a target that no one can see.
Imran’s masterstroke against Sharif is such an act of genius that the entire nation is unable to see the target that it has hit. All that PTI and its horde of social media jihadi’s now need to do is explain this to the entire nation that:
Since, we consider the Sharif regime as illegitimate, all foreign debts that it would incur would be illegitimate odious debt and hence would not be paid by the future Pakistani governments.
Imran Khan himself needs to do a better job and explain this to the foreign lenders that since the Sharifs always loot and plunder these loans for their personal gains, future PTI/Pakistani government would consider the foreign loans received by the Sharif regime as illegitimate. Once this is made abundantly clear to both the national and international audiences, it does not matter an iota if the civil disobedience movement fails to reduce the amount of taxes collected at the National level..
Posted by admin in Foreign Policy on April 22nd, 2014
Posted by admin in Foreign Policy on October 10th, 2013
Debate continues between various political and religious leaders in relation to peace dialogue with the Taliban.
In this regard, after obtaining consensus of the mainstream political parties in the All Parties Conference (APC), held on September 9, 2013, the government led by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had decided to start peace process with the militants, especially of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). The TTP had also welcomed the government’s offer.
But, TTP insurgents did not stop their subversive acts. On September 15, this year, Maj-Gen. Sanaullah Khan including a lieutenant colonel and a soldier were killed in a landmine attack in Upper Dir. TTP spokesman claimed responsibility in this respect. In the same month, the terrorist attacks at All Saints Church, Qissa, Khwani bazaar in Peshawar, and the bus explosion on Charsadda Road killed several innocent Christians and Muslims. All these brutal incidents shocked the whole nation as well the political parties. It is due to these incidents that the present regime has become reluctant to start a peace process with the insurgents.
Notably, Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani said on September 16, that no one should have any misgivings that the Pakistan Army would let terrorists coerce them into accepting their terms through peace process. He clarified that the Pakistan Army had the capability and determination to fight terrorists in accordance with the will of the nation.
In his recent statement, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif pointed out that the Taliban required to lay down their arms to reach the agreement. Both Gen Kayani and PM Sharif agreed to reject any pre-conditions by the insurgents.
Although PM Sharif still wants to act upon the dialogue-option with the Taliban, yet after the latest terrorist acts, he has also approved amendments in the anti-terror laws to cope with menace of terrorism. So, there is no civil-military difference regarding peace process, as some hostile elements propagate.
As regards Taliban, on the one side, TTP spokesman Shahidullah Shahid assailed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for changing his mind and giving precondition of laying down weapons, saying that his government was not serious about holding the dialogue, while on the other, he welcomed the suggestions of Pakistani Ulema (clerics) and various religious seminaries regarding a ceasefire prior to peace talks.
However, differences still exist between political and religious parties regarding peace talks with the militants in wake of their confused perceptions. In this connection, the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) convened all parties’ conference on October 4 and in its joint declaration, urged the government to immediately announce a team to start talks with the Taliban. At the same time, the participants expressed serious concern over terrorist incidents in Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa, demanding the federal government to extend full support to the provincial government so that it could take concrete steps to protect people and properties. But Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and Pakistan Peoples Party did not attend the conference.
Meanwhile, Chief of PTI Imran Khan who strongly favoured peace process with the Taliban, and even suggested to open an office for them has become reluctant. Taking note of TTP’s ploy, Imran Khan said on September 3, “If talks failed, an operation should be approached.” Even, Chief of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) Maulana Fazlur Rehman who has supported dialogue with the Taliban, has no clear stand in this regard, after the perennial wave of terror-assaults. Earlier, Chief of JI, Munawar Hasan who also supported peace talks, stated that he was willing to act as a mediator between the government and the TTP, but there are many groups of Taliban, and with whom he or government will have peace talks.
Nevertheless, some political circles stress upon the government to implement the decisions taken in the all parties’ conference, while some opine that government should call another all parties’ conference, and review its earlier decision about dialogue with Taliban.
It is mentionable that in the recent years, terror-attacks by the militants on the installations of Pak Army, Air Force, offices of the ISI, Rangers, Police and assaults on Army outposts including ruthless beheadings of innocent civilians and prominent figures were conducted especially by the TTP insurgents and its umbrella militant outfits which also targeted the places of worships of Shias, Ahmadis, Sufis, Christians and Sikhs.
Based in Afghanistan, American CIA, Indian RAW and Israeli Mossad have perennially been supporting bomb blasts, suicide attacks, abductions, target-killings, ethnic and sectarian violence in various parts of the country through TTP, Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), Jundollah (God’s soldiers) which have connections with each other including some Baloch feudal lords (Sardars) who want to fulfill the secret strategic designs of US, India and Israel at the cost of Pakistan, China and Iran. Besides martyring several personnel of law-enforcing agencies and security forces in Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa and Karachi, these foreign-backed entities kidnapped and massacred many Punjabis and Pushtuns including Chinese and Iranian nationals.
Besides facing political instability, financial losses and social strife, Pakistan’s more than 40,000 people were killed, and 8,000 personal of the security forces sacrificed their lives in coping with these stateless actors in order to maintain the security of the country.
In fact, various segments of society have no trust, particularly on the TTP which sometimes, agrees for peace talks, and sometimes rejects the same as part of its duplicity. Similarly, sometimes, they claim responsibility for their heinous acts and sometimes, deny the same. For example, recently, they denied attacks at the Peshawar church, but now accepted their involvement. Their acts of sabotage have resulted into image-distortion of Pakistan, Islam, worst law and order situation—sense of insecurity which has made the whole nation paranoid with fear and terror. However, even in case of talks, the government must not follow policy of appeasement, as the militants are blackmailing the entire nation through subversive activities.
Nonetheless, a majority of people demands to use force against the Taliban instead of option of talks because their continued terrorist attacks have hampered peace dialogue.
Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations
Email: [email protected]
Posted by admin in Foreign Policy on September 11th, 2013
Even before he was caught playing poker on his iPhone at a Senate hearing on Wednesday, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had already sent a message: Anything less than an extensive aerial assault on the Syrian regime by American forces would be an unacceptable approach to the conflict in the Middle East. This was hardly surprising. Over the last two decades, McCain has rarely missed an opportunity to call for the escalation of an international conflict. Since themid-1990s, he’s pushed for regime change in more than a half-dozen countries—occasionally with disastrous consequences.
Here’s a quick review of McCain’s eagerness for military action and foreign entanglements.
Fighting words: “Providing military assistance to the Free Syrian Army and other opposition groups is necessary, but at this late hour, that alone will not be sufficient to stop the slaughter and save innocent lives. The only realistic way to do so is with foreign air power.”
What he wanted: Airstrikes, culminating in regime change.
What was it good for? TBD.
Angry McCains: Five
Fighting words: “Leaders always have choices, and history teaches that hard choices deferred—appeasing Hitler, choosing not to deter Saddam Hussein in 1990, failing to act sooner against Al Qaeda—often bring about the very circumstances we wished to avoid by deferring action, requiring us to react in freedom’s defense. America’s leaders today have a choice. It will determine whether our people live in fear behind walls that have already been breached, as our enemies plan our defeat in time we have given them to do it.”
What he wanted: Ground war culminating in regime change.
What was it good for? See above.
Angry McCains: Five
AFGHANISTAN
Fighting words: “We should make an immediate statement of our resolve that we no longer intend to tolerate sanction given to our enemies by any nation…Should the Taliban refuse our demand, then they must know that they will be treated as allies of our enemy, and, thus, are themselves our enemies, and will suffer much for their allegiance.”
What he wanted: Osama bin Laden’s head, at any cost.
What was it good for? Ground war culminating in regime change (ongoing).
Angry McCains: Five
Fighting words: “I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically-elected governments” (2000). “[I]t does take time, as it did during the period of the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. But we were able to provide them with some weapons and wherewithal to cause the Russians to leave Afghanistan. So we can do it” (2012).
What he wanted: Regime change.
What was it good for? Regime change (12 years—and one ill-considered tweet) later.
Angry McCains: Five
Fighting words: “The best course for us, NATO, Kosovo, Russia and even Serbia is to begin fighting this war as if it were a war, with huge stakes involved, instead of some strange interlude between peace initiatives…To that end, we should commence today to mobilize infantry and armored divisions for a possible ground war in Kosovo.”
What he wanted: Ground war culminating in regime change.
What was it good for? Airstrikes.
Angry McCains: Four
IRAQ (PART I)
Fighting words: “It is clear to me that if we fail to act there will be inevitably a succession of dictators, of Saddam Husseins, of which around the globe there is an abundance.”
What he wanted: Ground war in Kuwait.
What was it good for? See above.
Angry McCains: Four
Fighting words: “If [Bosnians] were equipped,especially with TOW missiles, some heavy armor, some tanks, then I think that we could foresee a stable situation.”
What he wanted: Air strikes and military assistance.
What was it good for? See above.
Angry McCains: Three
NORTH KOREA
Fighting words: “I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically-elected governments.”
What he wanted: Either regime change by aiding local opposition, or an outright military confrontation.
What was it good for? TBD
Angry McCains: Three
Fighting words: “It’s that old Beach Boys song, ‘Bomb Iran’? Bomb bomb bomb…”
What was it good for? Unspecified air strikes; unspecified support for dissident groups.
What he got: TBD.
Angry McCains: Three
Fighting words: “Today, we are all Georgians.”
What he wanted: Unspecified aggression toward Russia after invasion of Georgia.
What was it good for? Absolutely nothing.
Angry McCains: Two
RUSSIA
Fighting words: “Now is the time to fundamentally rethink our relationship with Putin’s Russia. We need to deal with the Russia that is, not the Russia we might wish for. We cannot allow today’s action by Putin to stand without serious repercussions…We should push for the completion of all phases of our missile defense programs in Europe, and move expeditiously on another round of NATO expansion.”
What he wanted: A new Cold War.
What was it good for? Absolutely nothing.
Angry McCains: Two
Fighting words: “NATO should immediately establish and enforce a no-fly zone over Darfur to ensure that Khartoum ends its offensive military flights and bombing raids, as the Security Council has already demanded…[T]he United States should intensify efforts to persuade UN members to commit troops and funds for the UN force in Darfur, and it should develop plans for US logistical support.”
What he wanted: UN troops.
What was it good for? UN troops.
Angry McCains: Two
Fighting words: “We need to have DOD assistance as much as feasible and necessary to prevent Mali from deteriorating further into a chaotic situation.”
What he wanted: Military assistance.
What was it good for? Military assistance.
Angry McCains: Two
Fighting words: “The Arab Spring is coming to China.”
What he wanted: Totally unclear.
What was it good for? Nothing.
Angry McCains: One