All: 1) Before 9/11/2001: Pakistan was involved in cross border terrorism with India. In Pak Occupied Kashmir, militant camps were established with full knowledge of Pakistani Army and Government.
2) When Taliban took over Afganistan - Pakistan was the first to recognize Taliban 3) Pakistan's FATA tribal areas is a lawless zone - Federal Government has no control over there. So frustrated, Madarssa graduated kids are recruited by Taliban/Bin laden groups. 4) President Bush were fully aware of such terrorist camps and Pakistan's state sponsored terrorism against India; Pakistan President designated the infiltrated terrorists of Pakistan as "Freedom Fighters" in international forums, when India complained. 5) Pakistani trained terrorists has attacked Indian parliament in broad day light, in Dec,13,2001 . After that India said enough is enough and got ready for a nuclear war; mobilized its army. Pakistan also repeated the same thing, what they are talking now. They said " Pakistan is no Afganistan and India is no United States". India was so frustrated that it was ready for a nuclear war. Because at worst case it might lose few cities, but entire Pakistan would have wiped off the word map, because of smaller area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001-2002_India-Pakistan_standoff 6) But by mid-June, the Indian government accepted Musharraf’s pledge to end militant infiltration into India, and on June 10, air restrictions over India were ended and Indian warships removed from Pakistan’s coast. So good sense prevailed - but in coming days Pakistan won't quit its state sponsored cross border terrorism policy. When you can't win a conventional war - it is best use terror. This has been 'Pakistan's Doctrine' 7) When President Bush were giving Pakistan 10 billion dollars, being a specialist in Indo-Pak relations, I knew what was going to happen. So instead of spending them against war on terror sincerely, they were spent on buying equipments of Pakistani Army. Some billions has gone to pocket of generals. 8) After 8 years of frustration, the Bush Doctrine is invoked because it is now or never. In history of America, there may not be another sincere president , who can fight war like President Bush. 9) Now it is do (kill the terrorists yourself) or die . Bush Doctrine is most appropriate even for ally when they double cross their ally. -MP On Sep 17, 5:10 pm, "Mark Kahle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The modern world and th UN recognize one one... While the > boundaries of nation-states and tribe clash, the basis of UN is nation- > state boundaries... > > But then that is the US problem in a nutshell.... they do not > understand the basis for tribal conflict because it is not done as > they think it should be...... > > Grow up, get an education then you will have an inkling. Then go live > in a tribally conflicted area and you may learn the rest. > > On 9/17/08, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > There is only one border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, not two... > > The problem with nation-states is their borders conflict with tribal > > boundaries... A Paki Pushan IS INVADING Afghanistan if he goes to > > Afghanistan to fight -- at least in the eyes of Pakistan and > > Afghanistan... > > > You want to apply two different standards to nation-states and > > tribes... The modern world and th UN recognize one one... While the > > boundaries of nation-states and tribe clash, the basis of UN is nation- > > state boundaries... Frankly the demands, formulations, and > > limitations of European notion of ethnic nation-states IS THE CAUSE OF > > THE PROBLEM HERE... Kosova and Georgia aand the Pushans are but > > examples of the problems... > > > On Sep 16, 5:45 pm, "Mark Kahle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Confirmed , historical, tribal warfare that knows no boundary is and > > > was not the question. it is about a FOREIGN army crossing what is > > > supposed to be an ALLIES' territory without permission and killing > > > who they please. > > > > what part of that don't you get?? > > > > It is the absolute equivalence of the Mexican Army persuing or hunting > > > drug dealers who do business on both sides of the border in the "War > > > on Drugs" onto US soil and killing a few dealers along with a lot of > > > civilians. Blowing up an apartment building because a dealer lives > > > there ......... Just how well would that sit with you?? > > > > On 9/16/08, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Does this also mean the border Pakistani Pushans have the right to > > > > cross the border and attack Afghanistan Pushans??? Or does the right > > > > to make their own laws and have self-defense apply to Pakistanis but > > > > not Afghanis??? > > > > > On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, "Mark Kahle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I.ve been around and do accept it as Gospel!!!!!!!!! The problem is > > > > > someone forgot to tell the Pakistanis and all those pesky people that > > > > > think they have a right to make their own laws and defend themselves. > > > > > > On 9/16/08, Zebnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > The Bush Doctrine. Where have you been? > > > > > > > On Sep 16, 1:58 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > d.b. > > > > > > > > The question was what gives the U.S. the right (as in legal > > > > > > > right) to > > > > > > > invade the territory of another sovreign nation? NOT what is the > > > > > > > excuse for doing so. You understand the difference? > > > > > > > > On Sep 16, 11:25 am, "d.b.baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sep 16, 12:17 pm, "Mark Kahle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Why does the US supposedly have the right to impose > > > > > > > > > themselves on > > > > > > > > > another nations soil?? > > > > > > > > > Are you not aware of the situation in Pakistan, specifically > > > > > > > > its use > > > > > > > > as a safe haven and staging area for AQ/Taliban? > > > > > > > > > Which makes you double question mark all the more remarkable.- > > > > > > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > -- > > > > > Mark M. Kahle > > > > > Blessed are the bewildered for they don't know the difference.... Me > > > > -- > > > Mark M. Kahle > > > Blessed are the bewildered for they don't know the difference.... Me > > -- > Mark M. Kahle > Blessed are the bewildered for they don't know the difference.... Me --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
