Pakistan set to reap $35 billion windfall from terrorism

[cosmicone]

Source: Times of India

WASHINGTON: Terrorism pays. That may well be the message the United States and its allies send out to the world this week as they line up
billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan despite the country’s military and intelligence agencies being implicated by American officials in acts and practice of terrorism.

Ignoring confirmation about the Pakistan’s continued support and use of terrorism obtained through electronic surveillance and informants, and even brazen affirmation by Pakistani officialdom itself, the Obama administration is set to lavish a bonanza that might eventually add up to more than $ 30-$ 35 billion over the next decade.

About half the windfall will come from the US and the other half from its allies such as Japan, EU, and Gulf countries.

Washington is set to announce its largesse of around $ 15 billion of US tax-payer money in course of its new Af-Pak policy to be unveiled Friday, followed by a conference in Tokyo on April 17 of the so-called ''Friends of Pakistan'' where Islamabad is pitching for $ 10 billion.

Read more: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Pakistan-set-to-reap--35-billion-windfall-from-terrorism/articleshow/4318277.cms

---

This is utterly disgusting. When will we realize that this money will be used by Pakistan and ISI to kill Americans by funding the Taliban even more?

When will we realize that this money will be used by Pakistan to fund more terrorist actions in India and around the world?

[angstlessk]

1. actually it is supporting terrorism AND having nuclear bombs..no wonder Iran

wants to go nuclear!!!

[acmavm]

2. All this is coming from Times of India. Could this be a problem?

Pakistan's ISI aiding Taliban in southern Afghanistan: NYT
Edited on Thu Mar-26-09 01:48 PM by cosmicone
Source: Times of India / NY Times

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3801951

[cosmicone]

3. oh how dare the Indians print anything?

They must be unbelievable and lack journalistic standards!! :sarcasm:

(Forget that NY Times printed pretty much the same story)

[acmavm]

4. Don't be a tool. India and Pakistan are hardly allies. That's what

I meant.

You are an idiot if you thought anything otherwise.

[cosmicone]

7. So just because they are no allies, newspapers would

print false stories citing western intelligence sources which have said the same thing to other media?

[ohio2007]

11. Taliban take over emerald mines in Pak's Swat region ( Times of India article needs Pak MSM repy l)

I wonder if the Pak MSM will deny this 'breaking news' unstory

Taliban take over emerald mines in Pak's Swat region

snip

The mines, along with the Panjshir mines in Afghanistan, hold the largest known deposits of emeralds in South Asia.

According to the terms of a deal, the Taliban take one-third of the yield of each set of miners. The rules, which include amputation for theft and strict adherence to Sharia rules, mean only those with strong Taliban sympathies are allowed to operate.

So far the Pakistan government has made no move to contest the Taliban's control of the mines. This is despite the fact that the funds from the emerald operations are likely to be a huge boost to Taliban coffers.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Taliban-take-over-emerald-mines-in-Paks-Swat-region/articleshow/4315551.cms

They could nation build with selliing drugs and gems imo

[acmavm]

15. Yes, of course. Read any international media lately?

[RedCloud]

10. Times of India also reported Iraqi oil was $ 0.97 a barrel to extract.

I think this was the most important oil news/Iraqi war justification news ever.

[acmavm]

16. And?

[The Stranger]

5. This sounds like "Axis of Evil" Neocon propaganda.

This isn't aid to support terrorism. Trying to work with Pakistan is not supporting terrorism, but the contrary.

[cosmicone]

9. All aid to Pakistan is given to the military which in turn gives it

to ISI which gives it to Taliban. Doh.

Why does Pakistan need F-16s and B-1Bs to fight a guerilla war?

http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=54322 (This article is from a Pakistani newspaper so as to negate the question of bias)

[The Stranger]

17. You're kidding, right?

Pakistan's military needs aren't determined by the Neocon Fantasies and the Politics of Fear. Pakistan's military needs are determined by its gigantic neighbor, India. That is the WHOLE POINT OF THE ARTICLE YOU JUST LINKED.

Why does Pakistan need F-16s and B-1Bs to fight a guerilla war?

I can't believe you need to even ask this. Maybe a book on the history of the founding of India and Pakistan would help? Maybe a brief review of the recent history of the two nuclear powers?

[cosmicone]

18. Why are we supplying Pakistan for a war against India when

India is our natural ally?

[The Stranger]

19. You have switched from claiming the aid is to support the Taliban to claiming it is to fight India.

I guess that is progress.

Now, when you say "India is our natural ally," what exactly do you mean by a "natural ally?" That still sounds like Neocon "Axis of Evil," "You're-either-with-us-or-you're-with-the-terrorists" type of propaganda.

Aren't there interests the U.S. has in common with Pakistan, and interests the U.S. has in common with India?

And doesn't the U.S. have interests in common with neither?

This President wants to act as an adult and look at the world in this way. Hopefully, the American people will have the intelligence to begin doing the same thing.

[cosmicone]

20. I haven't changed what I believe.

It has been well documented that Pakistan created, funded, armed and trained the Taliban for its "strategic depth" policy and it is still doing so. Thus aid to Pakistan will always equal aid to Taliban.

Furthermore, Pakistan arms itself to fight India when India has never attacked Pakistan and has shown no intention of doing so except some posturing in self defense after being subjected to Pakistan funded terrorist acts. Thus, arming Pakistan means arming for the purposes of a naked aggression with no legitimate reason.

Lastly, India is a "natural ally" because India is a secular, multi-ethnic and diverse DEMOCRACY with an independent judiciary and freedoms like in the bill of rights, as opposed to Pakistan which is always ruled by the military -- either overtly or covertly, doesn't have an independent judiciary and is a terrorist state. Case closed.

[The Stranger]

21. Let's try this one more time.

Aid to Pakistan does not equal aid to the Taliban. First, many nations, including the U.S., at one time aided groups in Afghanistan in its war with the Soviet Union. According to your reasoning, the U.S. is not a "natural ally" of itself, and this fails reductio ad absurdum. That a nation at one time aided the Taliban does not mean that any aid to that nation equals aid to the Taliban.

Second, nations are a bit more complex than your world view seems to permit. Repeating myself here, but most involved in foreign policy and world politics look at how nations deal with one another not as "good guys" and "bad guys," but as very complex states with varying and changing national interests. What is key is weighing these various interests in making complex decisions, and reexamining them as events develop. With these principles in mind, saying "aid to Pakistan will always equal aid to the Taliban" is childish.

Third, I don't think it is really accurate to say that "India has never attacked Pakistan and has shown no intention of doing so except posturing in self defense." Again repeating myself here, there is a history to the struggle between and the birth of these two nations, side-by-side. This struggle also involved a colonial power in Great Britain. To view one or more of these as "all good" and the other as "all bad" does violence to the reality of these national struggles, and the real peoples involved.

Fourth, as explained, it is important to view the various institutions and interests of other states in foreign policy. To the extent India has a secular, multi-ethnic and diverse democracy with an independent judiciary, assuming your statements to be true, then this should be supported. What is dangerous in your oversimplified view is that supporting India in this requires, at the same time, the opposing Pakistan in all things, or referring to a whole people as "terrorist." This has been used by Neoconservatives to justify their launching unprovoked wars and to commit war crimes (remember the fabrications regarding "weapons of mass destruction"). Rather, the elements of Pakistan that include a secular and multi-ethnic democracy should be nurtured, not launched wars against.

I am glad that I had a chance to break down some of your posts here. All too often the sort of knee-jerk, black-and-white hysteria you propose is too loud for actual common sense reasoning and enlightened discussion to take place or be heard. All too often the "us" and "them" takes the place of a weighing of complex interests across different peoples and states, their interests, and a cool-headed and even-handed approach to international relations.

For that, if for nothing else, your posts may be worth something.

[cosmicone]

22. Anyone can preach "common sense" but the history must be

allowed to modify said so called "common sense."

So far, a majority of the aid given to Pakistan has been spent by Pakistan on reinforcing the Taliban and buying military hardware to fight with India.

I have no problem with humanitarian aid to Pakistan to strengthen democratic institutions and a secular form of government with strict audits and paper trails for the money. However, this has not been historically successful.

The nation of Pakistan was formed with explicit hatred of India and while many Pakistanis, particularly the Sindhis and Baluchis have no enmity towards India, the Punjabis who are primarily in control dream of the day muslims will rule India like the days of the Mogul empire. This is a fact and is well-established -- you can search the web for it.

I have never stated that all Pakistanis are bad and all Indians are good. There are bad people in every country and culture. However, India has never been accused of being a terrorist state while Pakistan is always at the top of the list of terrorist states.

While you talk about the history of the sub-continent, I am afraid it also reveals how little you know of the history and subsequent events.

However, I thank you for your eloquent post.

[Idealism]

6. This is a biased article.

The Pakistani army has lost thousands of troops fighting terrorism in the FATA and along the Afghan border. They have bleed more than we have in our war against the Taliban.

[cosmicone]

8. Thousands of Pakistani troops lost? Show me a credible source to that.

[Idealism]

12. It doesn't take but a second...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waziristan_War

1,558+ soldiers and policemen killed,
175+ tribesmen killed,
345+ soldiers and policemen captured (official)

1,978 soldiers and policemen killed,
245 tribesmen killed,
869 soldiers and policemen missing or captured (532 released) (Media claims)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/pakistans-hidden-war-969784.html


These numbers are a bit old, and the casualties have only gotten higher since then. There is a good documentary to watch, if you are interested:

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/general/2008/12/200812211123302404.html

[cosmicone]

13. Considering that most of the Taliban is active duty Pakistani

military, we don't know on which side the dead were fighting.

It is inconceivable that a well-trained military would lose 7-8 times more people than the tribesmen they were fighting against :rofl:

[Idealism]

14. You are confusing local tribal militia's with Taliban fighters.

The Pakistani government supplies and funds certain tribal militias so there is some semblance of law in the FATA, but these fighters are not loyal to the Taliban, although some may be connected to Al Qaeda. These tribal militia's are more concerned with fighting in the Kashmir region than fighting for or with Taliban or Taliban-sympathizers.